While search efficacy has been evaluated traditionally on the basis of result relevance, fairness of search has attracted recent attention. In this work, we define a notion of distributional fairness and provide a conceptual framework for evaluating search results based on it. As part of this, we formulate a set of axioms which an ideal evaluation framework should satisfy for distributional fairness. We show how existing TREC test collections can be repurposed to study fairness, and we measure potential data bias to inform test collection design for fair search. A set of analyses show metric divergence between relevance and fairness, and we describe a simple but flexible interpolation strategy for integrating relevance and fairness into a single metric for optimization and evaluation.
Researchers have proposed different methods to tackle the bias in IR systems . These approaches include new ranking algorithms taking fairness constraints into account , post-processing method for re-ranking existing systems considering both individual and group fairness , and evaluation of ranking systems in terms of fairness @cite_3 from a group fairness perspective. IBM-360 https: aif360.mybluemix.net is an industry standard for evaluating fairness in machine learning algorithms and datasets. However, it does not include measurements for ranking systems. Recent work such as has begun to explore evaluating search fairness.
@cite_3
2799201010 2779140735 2704480242 2768894107
Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality. The potential lack of fairness in the outputs of machine learning algorithms has recently gained attention both within the research community as well as in society more broadly. Surprisingly, there is no prior work developing tree-induction algorithms for building fair decision trees or fair random forests. These methods have widespread popularity as they are one of the few to be simultaneously interpretable, non-linear, and easy-to-use. In this paper we develop, to our knowledge, the first technique for the induction of fair decision trees. We show that our "Fair Forest" retains the benefits of the tree-based approach, while providing both greater accuracy and fairness than other alternatives, for both "group fairness" and "individual fairness.'" We also introduce new measures for fairness which are able to handle multinomial and continues attributes as well as regression problems, as opposed to binary attributes and labels only. Finally, we demonstrate a new, more robust evaluation procedure for algorithms that considers the dataset in its entirety rather than only a specific protected attribute. In this work, we define and solve the Fair Top-k Ranking problem, in which we want to determine a subset of k candidates from a large pool of n » k candidates, maximizing utility (i.e., select the "best" candidates) subject to group fairness criteria. Our ranked group fairness definition extends group fairness using the standard notion of protected groups and is based on ensuring that the proportion of protected candidates in every prefix of the top-k ranking remains statistically above or indistinguishable from a given minimum. Utility is operationalized in two ways: (i) every candidate included in the top-k should be more qualified than every candidate not included; and (ii) for every pair of candidates in the top-k, the more qualified candidate should be ranked above. An efficient algorithm is presented for producing the Fair Top-k Ranking, and tested experimentally on existing datasets as well as new datasets released with this paper, showing that our approach yields small distortions with respect to rankings that maximize utility without considering fairness criteria. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first algorithm grounded in statistical tests that can mitigate biases in the representation of an under-represented group along a ranked list. The most prevalent notions of fairness in machine learning are statistical definitions: they fix a small collection of pre-defined groups, and then ask for parity of some statistic of the classifier across these groups. Constraints of this form are susceptible to intentional or inadvertent "fairness gerrymandering", in which a classifier appears to be fair on each individual group, but badly violates the fairness constraint on one or more structured subgroups defined over the protected attributes. We propose instead to demand statistical notions of fairness across exponentially (or infinitely) many subgroups, defined by a structured class of functions over the protected attributes. This interpolates between statistical definitions of fairness and recently proposed individual notions of fairness, but raises several computational challenges. It is no longer clear how to audit a fixed classifier to see if it satisfies such a strong definition of fairness. We prove that the computational problem of auditing subgroup fairness for both equality of false positive rates and statistical parity is equivalent to the problem of weak agnostic learning, which means it is computationally hard in the worst case, even for simple structured subclasses. We then derive two algorithms that provably converge to the best fair classifier, given access to oracles which can solve the agnostic learning problem. The algorithms are based on a formulation of subgroup fairness as a two-player zero-sum game between a Learner and an Auditor. Our first algorithm provably converges in a polynomial number of steps. Our second algorithm enjoys only provably asymptotic convergence, but has the merit of simplicity and faster per-step computation. We implement the simpler algorithm using linear regression as a heuristic oracle, and show that we can effectively both audit and learn fair classifiers on real datasets.