mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Generalizing Fair Top-k Selection: An Integrative Approach

arXiv 2603.04689 ↗First posted 5 Mar 2026cs.DS cs.CC cs.CGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fair top-k selection, which ensures appropriate proportional representation of members from minority or historically disadvantaged groups among the top-k selected candidates, has drawn significant attention. We study the problem of finding a fair (linear) scoring function with multiple protected groups while also minimizing the disparity from a reference scoring function. This generalizes the prior setup, which was restricted to the single-group setting without disparity minimization. Previous studies imply that the number of protected groups may have a limited impact on the runtime efficiency. However, driven by the need for experimental exploration, we find that this implication overlooks a critical issue that may affect the fairness of the outcome. Once this issue is properly considered, our hardness analysis shows that the problem may become computationally intractable even for a two-dimensional dataset and small values of k. However, our analysis also reveals a gap in the hardness barrier, enabling us to recover the efficiency for the case of small k when the number of protected groups is sufficiently small. Furthermore, beyond measuring disparity as the "distance" between the fair and the reference scoring functions, we introduce an alternative disparity measureunicodex2014utility lossunicodex2014that may yield a more stable scoring function under small weight perturbations. Through careful engineering trade-offs that balance implementation complexity, robustness, and performance, our augmented two-pronged solution demonstrates strong empirical performance on real-world datasets, with experimental observations also informing algorithm design and implementation decisions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2026.

Builds on

16 of 47 references.

References · 16

  1. 2018Fair Clustering Through Fairletscited by 176
  2. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
  3. 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
  4. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  5. 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
  6. 2019Proportionally Fair Clusteringcited by 69
  7. 2018The Price of Fair PCA: One Extra Dimensioncited by 67
  8. 2023A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challengescited by 41
  9. 2017Designing Fair Ranking Schemescited by 40
  10. 2018Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 29
  11. 2023Efficient fair PCA for fair representation learningcited by 23
  12. 2019Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraintscited by 20
4 more
  1. 2022Rawlsian Fairness in Online Bipartite Matching: Two-sided, Group, and Individualcited by 7
  2. 2018On Obtaining Stable Rankingscited by 6
  3. 2024Query Refinement for Diverse Top-k Selectioncited by 2
  4. 2025Finding a Fair Scoring Function for Top-k Selection: From Hardness to Practicecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.