Learn to be Fair without Labels: A Distribution-based Learning Framework for Fair Ranking

Ranking algorithms as an essential component of retrieval systems have been constantly improved in previous studies, especially regarding relevance-based utilities. In recent years, more and more research attempts have been proposed regarding fairness in rankings due to increasing concerns about potential discrimination and the issue of echo chamber. These attempts include traditional score-based methods that allocate exposure resources to different groups using pre-defined scoring functions or selection strategies and learning-based methods that learn the scoring functions based on data samples. Learning-based models are more flexible and achieve better performance than traditional methods. However, most of the learning-based models were trained and tested on outdated datasets where fairness labels are barely available. State-of-art models utilize relevance-based utility scores as a substitute for the fairness labels to train their fairness-aware loss, where plugging in the substitution does not guarantee the minimum loss. This inconsistency challenges the model's accuracy and performance, especially when learning is achieved by gradient descent. Hence, we propose a distribution-based fair learning framework (DLF) that does not require labels by replacing the unavailable fairness labels with target fairness exposure distributions. Experimental studies on TREC fair ranking track dataset confirm that our proposed framework achieves better fairness performance while maintaining better control over the fairness-relevance trade-off than state-of-art fair ranking frameworks.

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

[2]  I. Ounis,et al.  ColBERT-PRF: Semantic Pseudo-Relevance Feedback for Dense Passage and Document Retrieval , 2022, ACM Trans. Web.

[3]  Zhiqiang Tao,et al.  A Meta-learning Approach to Fair Ranking , 2022, SIGIR.

[4]  T. Sakai,et al.  A Versatile Framework for Evaluating Ranked Lists in Terms of Group Fairness and Relevance , 2022, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Gourab K. Patro,et al.  Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions , 2022, FAccT.

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

[7]  Tai Le Quy,et al.  A survey on datasets for fairness‐aware machine learning , 2021, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[8]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  Pyserini: A Python Toolkit for Reproducible Information Retrieval Research with Sparse and Dense Representations , 2021, SIGIR.

[9]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Addressing Bias and Fairness in Search Systems , 2021, SIGIR.

[10]  Yingqiang Ge,et al.  FAIR: Fairness‐aware information retrieval evaluation , 2021, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Ed H. Chi,et al.  Understanding and Improving Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Multi-Task Learning , 2021, KDD.

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

[13]  Michael D. Ekstrand,et al.  Comparing Fair Ranking Metrics , 2020, ArXiv.

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

[15]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks , 2019, EMNLP.

[16]  Julia Stoyanovich,et al.  Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraints , 2019, IJCAI.

[17]  Nisheeth K. Vishnoi,et al.  Controlling Polarization in Personalization: An Algorithmic Framework , 2019, FAT.

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

[19]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making , 2018, 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE).

[20]  Ivan Kitanovski,et al.  FairSearch: A Tool For Fairness in Ranked Search Results , 2018, WWW.

[21]  Meike Zehlike,et al.  Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport , 2017, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

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

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

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

[25]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An Overview , 2010 .

[26]  ChengXiang Zhai,et al.  A comparative study of methods for estimating query language models with pseudo feedback , 2009, CIKM.

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

[28]  F. Chen,et al.  An Exploration of Learning-to-re-rank Using a Two-step Framework for Fair Ranking , 2022, TREC.

[29]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  RMIT at TREC 2021 Fair Ranking Track , 2021, TREC.

[30]  Hideo Joho,et al.  TKB48 at TREC 2021 Fairness Ranking Track , 2021, TREC.

[31]  Ming Li,et al.  The University of Amsterdam at the TREC 2021 Fair Ranking Track , 2021, TREC.

[32]  I. Ounis,et al.  University of Glasgow Terrier Team at the TREC 2020 Fair Ranking Track , 2020, TREC.

[33]  H. V. Jagadish,et al.  Online Set Selection with Fairness and Diversity Constraints , 2018, EDBT.

[34]  Jade Goldstein-Stewart,et al.  The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries , 1998, SIGIR '98.