skip to main content


Title: Measuring Fairness in Ranked Results: An Analytical and Empirical Comparison
Information access systems, such as search and recommender systems, often use ranked lists to present results believed to be relevant to the user’s information need. Evaluating these lists for their fairness along with other traditional metrics provide a more complete understanding of an information access system’s behavior beyond accuracy or utility constructs. To measure the (un)fairness of rankings, particularly with respect to protected group(s) of producers or providers, several metrics have been proposed in the last several years. However, an empirical and comparative analyses of these metrics showing the applicability to specific scenario or real data, conceptual similarities, and differences is still lacking. We aim to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical application of these metrics. In this paper we describe several fair ranking metrics from the existing literature in a common notation, enabling direct comparison of their approaches and assumptions, and empirically compare them on the same experimental setup and data sets in the context of three information access tasks. We also provide a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of the design choices and parameter settings that go in to these metrics and point to additional work needed to improve fairness measurement.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1751278
NSF-PAR ID:
10329880
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. We study critical systems that allocate scarce resources to satisfy basic needs, such as homeless services that provide housing. These systems often support communities disproportionately affected by systemic racial, gender, or other injustices, so it is crucial to design these systems with fairness considerations in mind. To address this problem, we propose a framework for evaluating fairness in contextual resource allocation systems that is inspired by fairness metrics in machine learning. This framework can be applied to evaluate the fairness properties of a historical policy, as well as to impose constraints in the design of new (counterfactual) allocation policies. Our work culminates with a set of incompatibility results that investigate the interplay between the different fairness metrics we propose. Notably, we demonstrate that: 1) fairness in allocation and fairness in outcomes are usually incompatible; 2) policies that prioritize based on a vulnerability score will usually result in unequal outcomes across groups, even if the score is perfectly calibrated; 3) policies using contextual information beyond what is needed to characterize baseline risk and treatment effects can be fairer in their outcomes than those using just baseline risk and treatment effects; and 4) policies using group status in addition to baseline risk and treatment effects are as fair as possible given all available information. Our framework can help guide the discussion among stakeholders in deciding which fairness metrics to impose when allocating scarce resources. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    Ranking evaluation metrics play an important role in information retrieval, providing optimization objectives during development and means of assessment of deployed performance. Recently, fairness of rankings has been recognized as crucial, especially as automated systems are increasingly used for high impact decisions. While numerous fairness metrics have been proposed, a comparative analysis to understand their interrelationships is lacking. Even for fundamental statistical parity metrics which measure group advantage, it remains unclear whether metrics measure the same phenomena, or when one metric may produce different results than another. To address these open questions, we formulate a conceptual framework for analytical comparison of metrics.We prove that under reasonable assumptions, popular metrics in the literature exhibit the same behavior and that optimizing for one optimizes for all. However, our analysis also shows that the metrics vary in the degree of unfairness measured, in particular when one group has a strong majority. Based on this analysis, we design a practical statistical test to identify whether observed data is likely to exhibit predictable group bias. We provide a set of recommendations for practitioners to guide the choice of an appropriate fairness metric. 
    more » « less
  3. For applications where multiple stakeholders provide recommendations, a fair consensus ranking must not only ensure that the preferences of rankers are well represented, but must also mitigate disadvantages among socio-demographic groups in the final result. However, there is little empirical guidance on the value or challenges of visualizing and integrating fairness metrics and algorithms into human-in-the-loop systems to aid decision-makers. In this work, we design a study to analyze the effectiveness of integrating such fairness metrics-based visualization and algorithms. We explore this through a task-based crowdsourced experiment comparing an interactive visualization system for constructing consensus rankings, ConsensusFuse, with a similar system that includes visual encodings of fairness metrics and fair-rank generation algorithms, FairFuse. We analyze the measure of fairness, agreement of rankers’ decisions, and user interactions in constructing the fair consensus ranking across these two systems. In our study with 200 participants, results suggest that providing these fairness-oriented support features nudges users to align their decision with the fairness metrics while minimizing the tedious process of manually having to amend the consensus ranking. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of next-generation fairness oriented-systems and along with emerging directions for future research. 
    more » « less
  4. Koyejo, S. ; Mohamed, S. ; Agarwal, A. ; Belgrave, D. ; Cho, K. ; Oh, A. (Ed.)
    Fairness has become an important topic in machine learning. Generally, most literature on fairness assumes that the sensitive information, such as gender or race, is present in the training set, and uses this information to mitigate bias. However, due to practical concerns like privacy and regulation, applications of these methods are restricted. Also, although much of the literature studies supervised learning, in many real-world scenarios, we want to utilize the large unlabelled dataset to improve the model's accuracy. Can we improve fair classification without sensitive information and without labels? To tackle the problem, in this paper, we propose a novel reweighing-based contrastive learning method. The goal of our method is to learn a generally fair representation without observing sensitive attributes.Our method assigns weights to training samples per iteration based on their gradient directions relative to the validation samples such that the average top-k validation loss is minimized. Compared with past fairness methods without demographics, our method is built on fully unsupervised training data and requires only a small labelled validation set. We provide rigorous theoretical proof of the convergence of our model. Experimental results show that our proposed method achieves better or comparable performance than state-of-the-art methods on three datasets in terms of accuracy and several fairness metrics. 
    more » « less
  5. Fairness has become an important topic in machine learning. Generally, most literature on fairness assumes that the sensitive information, such as gender or race, is present in the training set, and uses this information to mitigate bias. However, due to practical concerns like privacy and regulation, applications of these methods are restricted. Also, although much of the literature studies supervised learning, in many real-world scenarios, we want to utilize the large unlabelled dataset to improve the model's accuracy. Can we improve fair classification without sensitive information and without labels? To tackle the problem, in this paper, we propose a novel reweighing-based contrastive learning method. The goal of our method is to learn a generally fair representation without observing sensitive attributes.Our method assigns weights to training samples per iteration based on their gradient directions relative to the validation samples such that the average top-k validation loss is minimized. Compared with past fairness methods without demographics, our method is built on fully unsupervised training data and requires only a small labelled validation set. We provide rigorous theoretical proof of the convergence of our model. Experimental results show that our proposed method achieves better or comparable performance than state-of-the-art methods on three datasets in terms of accuracy and several fairness metrics. 
    more » « less