# Explainable Disparity Compensation for Efficient Fair Ranking

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14366 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14366/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.05807/) (2016)
- [Fairness of Exposure in Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07281/) (2018)
- [Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.01989/) (2019)
- [FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06368/) (2017)
- [Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08559/) (2016)
- [Ranking with Fairness Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06840/) (2017)
- [iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.01059/) (2018)
- [It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.05498/) (2021)
- [The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00731/) (2018)
- [Designing Fair Ranking Schemes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.09752/) (2017)
- [Fairness in Ranking: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.14000/) (2021)
- [Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.07361/) (2021)

## 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.