Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Impact of Group Membership Bias on the Quality and Fairness of Exposure in Ranking (2308.02887v2)

Published 5 Aug 2023 in cs.IR

Abstract: When learning to rank from user interactions, search and recommender systems must address biases in user behavior to provide a high-quality ranking. One type of bias that has recently been studied in the ranking literature is when sensitive attributes, such as gender, have an impact on a user's judgment about an item's utility. For example, in a search for an expertise area, some users may be biased towards clicking on male candidates over female candidates. We call this type of bias group membership bias. Increasingly, we seek rankings that are fair to individuals and sensitive groups. Merit-based fairness measures rely on the estimated utility of the items. With group membership bias, the utility of the sensitive groups is under-estimated, hence, without correcting for this bias, a supposedly fair ranking is not truly fair. In this paper, first, we analyze the impact of group membership bias on ranking quality as well as merit-based fairness metrics and show that group membership bias can hurt both ranking and fairness. Then, we provide a correction method for group bias that is based on the assumption that the utility score of items in different groups comes from the same distribution. This assumption has two potential issues of sparsity and equality-instead-of-equity; we use an amortized approach to address these. We show that our correction method can consistently compensate for the negative impact of group membership bias on ranking quality and fairness metrics.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (58)
  1. Unbiased Learning to Rank with Unbiased Propensity Estimation. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 385–394.
  2. The Role of Relevance in Fair Ranking. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2650–2660. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591933
  3. Centralized Admissions for Engineering Colleges in India. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 323–324.
  4. Overview of the TREC 2020 Fair Ranking Track. In The Twenty-Ninth Text REtrieval Conference Proceedings (TREC 2020).
  5. Overview of the TREC 2019 Fair Ranking Track. In The Twenty-Eighth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2019) Proceedings.
  6. Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210063
  7. Michael Brownstein. 2017. Implicit Bias. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Zalta (Ed.).
  8. Interventions for Ranking in the Presence of Implicit Bias. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372858
  9. Olivier Chapelle and Yi Chang. 2011. Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge Overview. In Proceedings of the Learning to Rank Challenge (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Vol. 14. PMLR, 1–24. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v14/chapelle11a.html
  10. Bias and Debias in Recommender System: A Survey and Future Directions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 41, 3, Article 67 (feb 2023), 39 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3564284
  11. Click Models for Web Search. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
  12. Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (2023), 1–50.
  13. Evaluating Stochastic Rankings with Expected Exposure. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3411962
  14. Overview of the TREC 2021 Fair Ranking Track. In The Thirtieth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2021) Proceedings.
  15. On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variance. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 649–675. https://doi.org/10.1145/3391403.3399482
  16. Gender Stereotype Reinforcement: Measuring the Gender Bias Conveyed by Ranking Algorithms. Information Processing & Management 57, 6 (2020), 102377.
  17. Chloë FitzGerald and Samia Hurst. 2017. Implicit Bias in Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review. BMC Medical Ethics 18, 1 (2017), 1–18. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8
  18. Algorithmic Bias: From Discrimination Discovery to Fairness-Aware Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2125–2126. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2945386
  19. A Survey on Fairness-aware Recommender Systems. Information Fusion 100 (2023), 101906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101906
  20. Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 154–161.
  21. Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 781–789.
  22. Christine Jolls and Cass R. Sunstein. 2006. The Law of Implicit Bias. Calif. L. Rev. 94 (2006), 969.
  23. Kilicheva Karomat. 2023. Unconscious Bias in the Workplace. International Journal on Integrated Education 6, 4 (2023), 266–268.
  24. DCM Bandits: Learning to Rank with Multiple Clicks. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 1215–1224.
  25. Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3819–3828. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702520
  26. Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. 2018. Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias. In 9th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2018). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
  27. Grep-BiasIR: A Dataset for Investigating Gender Representation-Bias in Information Retrieval Results. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07754 (2022).
  28. Do Perceived Gender Biases in Retrieval Results Affect Relevance Judgements? arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01731 (2022).
  29. Rajeev Kumar. 2009. RTI Complaint. Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001088/5392, Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001088.
  30. Cascading Bandits: Learning to Rank in the Cascade Model. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 767–776.
  31. Multiple-play Bandits in the Position-based Model. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1597–1605.
  32. Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári. 2020. Bandit Algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
  33. BubbleRank: Safe Online Learning to Re-rank via Implicit Click Feedback. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, 196–206.
  34. Reducing Gender Bias in the Evaluation and Selection of Future Leaders: The Role of Decision-makers’ Mindsets about the Universality of Leadership Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology (2023). https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001112
  35. Frank J Massey Jr. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 46, 253 (1951), 68–78.
  36. Selection in the Presence of Implicit Bias: The Advantage of Intersectional Constraints. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533124
  37. Pascal Molenberghs. 2013. The Neuroscience of In-group Bias. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 37, 8 (2013), 1530–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.002
  38. Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397271.3401100
  39. Racial and Ethnic Bias in Medical School Clinical Grading: A Review. Journal of surgical education (2023).
  40. Context-Aware Learning to Rank with Self-Attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10084 (2020).
  41. Tao Qin and Tie-Yan Liu. 2013. Introducing LETOR 4.0 Datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.2597 (2013).
  42. Learning Diverse Rankings with Multi-armed Bandits. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning. 784–791.
  43. Amifa Raj and Michael D. Ekstrand. 2022. Measuring Fairness in Ranked Results: An Analytical and Empirical Comparison. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3532018
  44. Yuta Saito and Thorsten Joachims. 2022. Fair Ranking as Fair Division: Impact-Based Individual Fairness in Ranking. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1514–1524. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534678.3539353
  45. Understanding and Mitigating the Effect of Outliers in Fair Ranking. In WSDM 2022: The Fifteenth International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 861–869.
  46. Shrikant Saxena and Shweta Jain. 2021. Exploring and Mitigating Gender Bias in Recommender Systems with Explicit Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02530 (2021).
  47. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2219–2228. https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3220088
  48. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2019. Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/file/9e82757e9a1c12cb710ad680db11f6f1-Paper.pdf
  49. Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiring (AIES ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462602
  50. Mixture-Based Correction for Position and Trust Bias in Counterfactual Learning to Rank. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1869–1878. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459637.3482275
  51. When Inverse Propensity Scoring Does Not Work: Affine Corrections for Unbiased Learning to Rank. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3412031
  52. Probabilistic Permutation Graph Search: Black-Box Optimization for Fairness in Ranking. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3532045
  53. Madalina Vlasceanu and David M. Amodio. 2022. Propagation of Societal Gender Inequality by Internet Search Algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 29 (2022), e2204529119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204529119 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2204529119
  54. Position Bias Estimation for Unbiased Learning to Rank in Personal Search. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 610–618.
  55. Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3532007
  56. Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462953
  57. Bozena Zdaniuk and John M. Levine. 2001. Group Loyalty: Impact of Members’ Identification and Contributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37, 6 (2001), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1474
  58. Click-based Hot Fixes for Underperforming Torso Queries. In Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 195–204.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Ali Vardasbi (12 papers)
  2. Maarten de Rijke (263 papers)
  3. Fernando Diaz (52 papers)
  4. Mostafa Dehghani (64 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now