Fairness of Exposure in Light of Incomplete Exposure Estimation

Fairness of exposure is a commonly used notion of fairness for ranking systems. It is based on the idea that all items or item groups should get exposure proportional to the merit of the item or the collective merit of the items in the group. Often, stochastic ranking policies are used to ensure fairness of exposure. Previous work unrealistically assumes that we can reliably estimate the expected exposure for all items in each ranking produced by the stochastic policy. In this work, we discuss how to approach fairness of exposure in cases where the policy contains rankings of which, due to inter-item dependencies, we cannot reliably estimate the exposure distribution. In such cases, we cannot determine whether the policy can be considered fair. % Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we define a method called \method for finding stochastic policies that avoid showing rankings with unknown exposure distribution to the user without having to compromise user utility or item fairness. Second, we extend the study of fairness of exposure to the top-k setting and also assess \method in this setting. We find that \method can significantly reduce the number of rankings with unknown exposure distribution without a drop in user utility or fairness compared to existing fair ranking methods, both for full-length and top-k rankings. This is an important first step in developing fair ranking methods for cases where we have incomplete knowledge about the user's behaviour.

[1]  Michael D. Ekstrand,et al.  Overview of the TREC 2019 Fair Ranking Track , 2020, ArXiv.

[2]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Probabilistic Permutation Graph Search: Black-Box Optimization for Fairness in Ranking , 2022, SIGIR.

[3]  Francesco Bonchi,et al.  Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups , 2022, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Understanding and Mitigating the Effect of Outliers in Fair Ranking , 2021, WSDM.

[5]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Mixture-Based Correction for Position and Trust Bias in Counterfactual Learning to Rank , 2021, CIKM.

[6]  G. Ritter,et al.  Lattice Theory , 2021, Introduction to Lattice Algebra.

[7]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Fairness in Ranking under Uncertainty , 2021, NeurIPS.

[8]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Fairness and Control of Exposure in Two-sided Markets , 2021, ICTIR.

[9]  Julia Stoyanovich,et al.  Fairness in Ranking: A Survey , 2021, ArXiv.

[10]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  User Fairness, Item Fairness, and Diversity for Rankings in Two-Sided Markets , 2020, ICTIR.

[11]  Xiangnan He,et al.  Clicks can be Cheating: Counterfactual Recommendation for Mitigating Clickbait Issue , 2020, SIGIR.

[12]  M. de Rijke,et al.  When Inverse Propensity Scoring does not Work: Affine Corrections for Unbiased Learning to Rank , 2020, CIKM.

[13]  Bhaskar Mitra,et al.  Evaluating Stochastic Rankings with Expected Exposure , 2020, CIKM.

[14]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions , 2019, SIGIR.

[15]  Sahin Cem Geyik,et al.  Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search , 2019, KDD.

[16]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking , 2019, NeurIPS.

[17]  Piotr Sapiezynski,et al.  Quantifying the Impact of User Attentionon Fair Group Representation in Ranked Lists , 2019, WWW.

[18]  Carlos Castillo,et al.  Fairness and Transparency in Ranking , 2019, BIRDS@SIGIR.

[19]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Estimating Position Bias without Intrusive Interventions , 2018, WSDM.

[20]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Intervention Harvesting for Context-Dependent Examination-Bias Estimation , 2018, SIGIR.

[21]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Towards a Fair Marketplace: Counterfactual Evaluation of the trade-off between Relevance, Fairness & Satisfaction in Recommendation Systems , 2018, CIKM.

[22]  B. Uçar,et al.  Further notes on Birkhoff–von Neumann decomposition of doubly stochastic matrices , 2018, Linear Algebra and its Applications.

[23]  Carlos Castillo,et al.  Reducing Disparate Exposure in Ranking: A Learning To Rank Approach , 2018, WWW.

[24]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings , 2018, SIGIR.

[25]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Unbiased Learning to Rank with Unbiased Propensity Estimation , 2018, SIGIR.

[26]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Fairness of Exposure in Rankings , 2018, KDD.

[27]  Marc Najork,et al.  Position Bias Estimation for Unbiased Learning to Rank in Personal Search , 2018, WSDM.

[28]  Ricardo Baeza-Yates,et al.  FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm , 2017, CIKM.

[29]  Nisheeth K. Vishnoi,et al.  Ranking with Fairness Constraints , 2017, ICALP.

[30]  Julia Stoyanovich,et al.  Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs , 2016, SSDBM.

[31]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback , 2016, WSDM.

[32]  Marc Najork,et al.  Learning to Rank with Selection Bias in Personal Search , 2016, SIGIR.

[33]  Yuxin Chen,et al.  Top-K ranking: An information-theoretic perspective , 2015, 2015 IEEE Information Theory Workshop - Fall (ITW).

[34]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Click Models for Web Search , 2015, Click Models for Web Search.

[35]  Yang Guo,et al.  On top-k recommendation using social networks , 2012, RecSys.

[36]  Yisong Yue,et al.  Beyond position bias: examining result attractiveness as a source of presentation bias in clickthrough data , 2010, WWW '10.

[37]  Hugo Zaragoza,et al.  The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond , 2009, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[38]  Prasad Deshpande,et al.  Efficient online top-K retrieval with arbitrary similarity measures , 2008, EDBT '08.

[39]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach , 2007, ICML '07.

[40]  Tao Tao,et al.  Language Model Information Retrieval with Document Expansion , 2006, NAACL.

[41]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  A n^5/2 Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs , 1971, SWAT.

[42]  N. S. Mendelsohn,et al.  On an Algorithm of G. Birkhoff Concerning Doubly Stochastic Matrices , 1960, Canadian Mathematical Bulletin.

[43]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Fairness and Discrimination in Information Access Systems , 2021, ArXiv.

[44]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Rankings , 2017 .

[45]  John D. Lafferty,et al.  A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to Ad Hoc information retrieval , 2001, SIGIR '01.