Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1805.01788 v1 pith:43IACZWB submitted 2018-05-04 cs.IR cs.CY

Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings

classification cs.IR cs.CY
keywords attentionrankingsfairnessindividualrankingunfairnesssubjectsaccumulated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Fairness in Search

    cs.IR 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces distributional fairness notion, axioms for ideal fairness evaluation in search, repurposes TREC collections, measures data bias, and proposes interpolation of fairness with relevance metrics.

  2. Fairness and Diversity in the Recommendation and Ranking of Participatory Media Content

    cs.SI 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Proposes a fairness and diversity aware model for ranking participatory media content and evaluates it using call logs from a rural Indian voice platform against manual curation.