Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ranking functions that are used in decision systems often produce disparate results for different populations because of bias in the underlying data. Addressing, and compensating for, these disparate outcomes is a critical problem for fair decision-making. Recent compensatory measures have mostly focused on opaque transformations of the ranking functions to satisfy fairness guarantees or on the use of quotas or set-asides to guarantee a minimum number of positive outcomes to members of underrepresented groups. In this paper we propose easily explainable data-driven compensatory measures for ranking functions. Our measures rely on the generation of bonus points given to members of underrepresented groups to address disparity in the ranking function. The bonus points can be set in advance, and can be combined, allowing for considering the intersections of representations and giving better transparency to stakeholders. We propose efficient sampling-based algorithms to calculate the number of bonus points to minimize disparity. We validate our algorithms using real-world school admissions and recidivism datasets, and compare our results with that of existing fair ranking algorithms.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2023.
Builds on
14 of 48 references.
References · 14
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 189
- 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
- 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
- 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
- 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
- 2018iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Makingcited by 64
- 2021It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarkscited by 61
- 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
- 2017Designing Fair Ranking Schemescited by 40
2 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.