An official website of the United States government
Algorithmic decisions often result in scoring and ranking individuals to determine credit worthiness, qualifications for college admissions and employment, and compatibility as dating partners. While automatic and seemingly objective, ranking algorithms can discriminate against individuals and protected groups, and exhibit low diversity. Furthermore, ranked results are often unstable -- small changes in the input data or in the ranking methodology may lead to drastic changes in the output, making the result uninformative and easy to manipulate. Similar concerns apply in cases where items other than individuals are ranked, including colleges, academic departments, or products. Despite the ubiquity of rankers, there is, to the best of our knowledge, no technical work that focuses on making rankers transparent. In this demonstration we present Ranking Facts, a Web-based application that generates a "nutritional label" for rankings. Ranking Facts is made up of a collection of visual widgets that implement our latest research results on fairness, stability, and transparency for rankings, and that communicate details of the ranking methodology, or of the output, to the end user. We will showcase Ranking Facts on real datasets from different domains, including college rankings, criminal risk assessment, and financial services.
more »
« less
Learning from Outcomes: Evidence-Based Rankings
Many selection procedures involve ordering candidates according to their qualifications. For example, a university might order applicants according to a perceived probability of graduation within four years, and then select the top 1000 applicants. In this work, we address the problem of ranking members of a population according to their “probability” of success, based on a training set of historical binary outcome data (e.g., graduated in four years or not). We show how to obtain rankings that satisfy a number of desirable accuracy and fairness criteria, despite the coarseness of the training data. As the task of ranking is global (the rank of every individual depends not only on their own qualifications, but also on every other individuals’ qualifications), ranking is more subtle and vulnerable to manipulation than standard prediction tasks. Towards mitigating unfair discrimination caused by inaccuracies in rankings, we develop two parallel definitions of evidence-based rankings. The first definition relies on a semantic notion of domination-compatibility: if the training data suggest that members of a set S are more qualified (on average) than the members of T, then a ranking that favors T over S (where T dominates S) is blatantly inconsistent with the evidence, and likely to be discriminatory. The definition asks for domination-compatibility, not just for a pair of sets, but rather for every pair of sets from a rich collection C of subpopulations. The second definition aims at precluding even more general forms of discrimination; this notion of evidence-consistency requires that the ranking must be justified on the basis of consistency with the expectations for every set in the collection C. Somewhat surprisingly, while evidence-consistency is a strictly stronger notion than domination-compatibility when the collection C is predefined, the two notions are equivalent when the collection C may depend on the ranking in question.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1763665
- PAR ID:
- 10137130
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 60th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 106 to 125
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
In social choice, traditional Kemeny rank aggregation combines the preferences of voters, expressed as rankings, into a single consensus ranking without consideration for how this ranking may unfairly affect marginalized groups (i.e., racial or gender). Developing fair rank aggregation methods is critical due to their societal influence in applications prioritizing job applicants, funding proposals, and scheduling medical patients. In this work, we introduce the Fair Exposure Kemeny Aggregation Problem (FairExp-kap) for combining vast and diverse voter preferences into a single ranking that is not only a suitable consensus, but ensures opportunities are not withheld from marginalized groups. In formalizing FairExp-kap, we extend the fairness of exposure notion from information retrieval to the rank aggregation context and present a complimentary metric for voter preference representation. We design algorithms for solving FairExp-kap that explicitly account for position bias, a common ranking-based concern that end-users pay more attention to higher ranked candidates. epik solves FairExp-kap exactly by incorporating non-pairwise fairness of exposure into the pairwise Kemeny optimization; while the approximate epira is a candidate swapping algorithm, that guarantees ranked candidate fairness. Utilizing comprehensive synthetic simulations and six real-world datasets, we show the efficacy of our approach illustrating that we succeed in mitigating disparate group exposure unfairness in consensus rankings, while maximally representing voter preferences.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundThe lack of racial diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in the United States higher education system. The issue is not only concerning diverse students, but also diverse faculty members. One important contributing factor is the faculty hiring process. To make progress toward equity in hiring decisions, it is necessary to better understand how applicants are considered and evaluated. In this paper, we describe and present our study based on a survey of current STEM faculty members and administrators who examined applicant qualifications and characteristics in STEM faculty hiring decisions. ResultsThere are three key findings of the present research. First, we found that faculty members placed different levels of importance on characteristics and qualifications for tenure track hiring and non-tenure track hiring. For example, items related to research were more important when evaluating tenure track applicants, whereas items related to teaching and diversity were more important when evaluating non-tenure track applicants. Second, faculty members’ institutional classification, position, and personal identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) had an impact on their evaluation criteria. For instance, we found men considered some diversity-related items more important than women. Third, faculty members rated the importance of qualifications with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related constructs significantly lower than qualifications that did not specify DEI-related constructs, and this trend held for both tenure track and non-tenure track faculty hiring. ConclusionsThis study was an attempt to address the issue of diversity in STEM faculty hiring at institutions of higher education by examining how applicant characteristics are considered and evaluated in faculty hiring practices. Emphasizing research reputation and postdoctoral reputation while neglecting institutional diversity and equitable and inclusive teaching, research, and service stunt progress toward racial diversity because biases—both implicit and explicit, both positive and negative—still exist. Our results were consistent with research on bias in recruitment, revealing that affinity bias, confirmation bias, and halo bias exist in the faculty hiring process. These biases contribute to inequities in hiring, and need to be addressed before we can reach, sustain, and grow desired levels of diversity.more » « less
-
Preference aggregation mechanisms help decision-makers combine diverse preference rankings produced by multiple voters into a single consensus ranking. Prior work has developed methods for aggregating multiple rankings into a fair consensus over the same set of candidates. Yet few real-world problems present themselves as such precisely formulated aggregation tasks with each voter fully ranking all candidates. Instead, preferences are often expressed as rankings over partial and even disjoint subsets of candidates. For instance, hiring committee members typically opt to rank their top choices instead of exhaustively ordering every single job applicant. However, the existing literature does not offer a framework for characterizing nor ensuring group fairness in such partial preference aggregation tasks. Unlike fully ranked settings, partial preferences imply both a selection decision of whom to rank plus an ordering decision of how to rank the selected candidates. Our work fills this gap by conceptualizing the open problem of fair partial preference aggregation. We introduce an impossibility result for fair selection from partial preferences and design a computational framework showing how we can navigate this obstacle. Inspired by Single Transferable Voting, our proposed solution PreFair produces consensus rankings that are fair in the selection of candidates and also in their relative ordering. Our experimental study demonstrates that PreFair achieves the best performance in this dual fairness objective compared to state-of-the-art alternatives adapted to this new problem while still satisfying voter preferences.more » « less
-
While conventional ranking systems focus solely on maximizing the utility of the ranked items to users, fairness-aware ranking systems additionally try to balance the exposure based on different protected attributes such as gender or race. To achieve this type of group fairness for ranking, we derive a new ranking system from the first principles of distributional robustness. We formulate a minimax game between a player choosing a distribution over rankings to maximize utility while satisfying fairness constraints against an adversary seeking to minimize utility while matching statistics of the training data. Rather than maximizing utility and fairness for the specific training data, this approach efficiently produces robust utility and fairness for a much broader family of distributions of rankings that include the training data. We show that our approach provides better utility for highly fair rankings than existing baseline methods.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2019.00016
