Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Algorithmic Bias in Search and Recommendation

BIAS 2021: Advances in Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval pp 51–63Cite as

Equality of Opportunity in Ranking: A Fair-Distributive Model

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 1126 Accesses

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1418))

Abstract

In this work, we define a Fair-Distributive ranking system based on Equality of Opportunity theory and fair division models. The aim is to determine the ranking order of a set of candidates maximizing utility bound to a fairness constraint. Our model extends the notion of protected attributes to a pool of individual’s circumstances, which determine the membership to a specific type. The contribution of this paper are i) a Fair-Distributive Ranking System based on criteria derived from distributive justice theory and its applications in both economic and social sciences; ii) a class of fairness metrics for ranking systems based on the Equality of Opportunity theory. We test our approach on an hypothetical scenario of a selection university process. A follow up analysis shows that the Fair-Distributive Ranking System preserves an equal exposure level for both minority and majority groups, providing a minimal system utility cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a detailed explanation of Bernstein Polynomials Log Likelihood, see [5, 17, 38].

References

  1. ALRossais, N.A., Kudenko, D.: Evaluating stereotype and non-stereotype recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. RecSys 2018. ACM, Vancouver (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asudeh, A., Jagadish, H.V., Stoyanovich, J., Das, G.: Designing fair ranking schemes. In: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2019, pp. 1259–1276. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3299869.3300079

  3. Barocas, S., Hardt, M., Narayanan, A.: Fairness and machine learning (2018). http://www.fairmlbook.org

  4. Biega, A.J., Gummadi, K.P., Weikum, G.: Equity of attention: amortizing individual fairness in rankings. In: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018, pp. 405–414. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210063

  5. Brunori, P., Neidhöfer, G.: The evolution of inequality of opportunity in Germany: A machine learning approach. ZEW - Centre Eur. Econ. Res. Discussion 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3570385

  6. Burke, R.: Multisided fairness for recommendation, July 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00093

  7. Burke, R., Sonboli, N., Ordonez-Gauger, A.: Balanced neighborhoods for multi-sided fairness in recommendation. In: Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 81, pp. 202–214. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), New York, 23–24 February 2018. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/burke18a.html

  8. Celis, L.E., Straszak, D., Vishnoi, N.K.: Ranking with fairness constraints (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Checchi, D., Peragine, V.: Inequality of opportunity in Italy. J. Econ. Inequality 8(4), 429–450 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-009-9118-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cortez, P., Silva, A.: Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. In: Brito, A., Teixeira, J. (eds.) Proceedings of 5th FUture BUsiness TEChnology Conference (FUBUTEC 2008). pp. 5–12 (2008). https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Student+Performance

  11. Gastwirth, J.L.: The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev. Econ. Stat. 54, 306–316 (1972)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS 2016, pp. 3323–3331. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., D’Acunto, L.: Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21(2), 191–207 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., Zeileis, A.: Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15(3), 651–674 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Irfan, S., Babu, B.V.: Information retrieval in big data using evolutionary computation: a survey. In: 2016 International Conference on Computing. Communication and Automation (ICCCA), pp. 208–213. IEEE, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karako, C., Manggala, P.: Using image fairness representations in diversity-based re-ranking for recommendations. In: Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP 2018. pp. 23–28. ACM, Singapore (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3213586.3226206

  17. Leblanc, A.: On estimating distribution functions using Bernstein polynomials. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 64, 919–943 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10463-011-0339-4

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Donni, P., Rodríguez, J.G., Rosa Dias, P.: Empirical definition of social types in the analysis of inequality of opportunity: a latent classes approach. Soc. Choice Welfare 44(3), 673–701 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-014-0851-6

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Makhijani, R., Chakrabarti, S., Struble, D., Liu, Y.: Lore: a large-scale offer recommendation engine with eligibility and capacity constraints. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2019, pp. 160–168. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3347027

  20. Patro, G.K., Biswas, A., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K.P., Chakraborty, A.: Fairrec: two-sided fairness for personalized recommendations in two-sided platforms. In: Huang, Y., King, I., Liu, T., van Steen, M. (eds.) WWW 2020: The Web Conference 2020, pp. 1194–1204. ACM/IW3C2, Taipei, Taiwan (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380196

  21. Pei, C., et al.: Personalized re-ranking for recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2019, pp. 3–11. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3347000

  22. Ramos, X., Van de Gaer, D.: Approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures and evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 30, 855–883 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robertson, S.E.: The Probability Ranking Principle in IR, pp. 281–286. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Roemer, J.E.: A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philos. Public Aff. 22(2), 146–166 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Roemer, J.E., Trannoy, A.: Equality of opportunity. Handb. Income Distrib. 2(2), 217–300 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh, A., Joachims, T.: Equality of opportunity in rankings (2017). https://www.k4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/WPOC2017_paper_9.pdf

  27. Singh, A., Joachims, T.: Fairness of exposure in rankings. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, p. 2219–2228. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3220088

  28. Singh, A., Joachims, T.: Policy learning for fairness in ranking. In: Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Beygelzimer, A., dAlché-Buc, F., Fox, E., Garnett, R. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pp. 5426–5436. Curran Associates Inc, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Strasser, H., Weber, C.: On the asymptotic theory of permutation statistics. Math. Methods Statist. 2, 220–250 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sweeney, L.: Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue - Storage 11(3), 10:10–10:29 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2460276.2460278

  31. Theil, H.: Statistical Decomposition Analysis: With Applications in the Social and Administrative Sciences, vol. 14. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1972)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsintzou, V., Pitoura, E., Tsaparas, P.: Bias disparity in recommendation systems, November 2018

    Google Scholar 

  33. Weinsberg, U., Bhagat, S., Ioannidis, S., Taft, N.: Blurme: inferring and obfuscating user gender based on ratings. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2012, pp. 195–202. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2365952.2365989

  34. Yaari, M.E., Bar-Hillel, M.: On dividing justly. Soc. Choice Welfare 1(1), 1–24 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J.: Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management. SSDBM 2017. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3085504.3085526

  36. Zehlike, M., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Hajian, S., Megahed, M., Baeza-Yates, R.: Fa*ir: a fair top-k ranking algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2017, pp. 1569–1578. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3132847.3132938

  37. Zehlike, M., Sühr, T., Castillo, C., Kitanovski, I.: Fairsearch: a tool for fairness in ranked search results. In: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, WWW 2020, pp. 172–175. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3383534

  38. Zhong, G.: Efficient and robust density estimation using Bernstein type polynomials. J. Nonparametric Stat. 28(2), 250–271 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/10485252.2016.1163349

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nexa Center for Internet and Society, DAUIN, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Elena Beretta, Antonio Vetrò & Juan Carlos De Martin

  2. Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Povo, Italy

    Elena Beretta & Bruno Lepri

Authors
  1. Elena Beretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Vetrò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Lepri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Carlos De Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Beretta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eurecat - Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Ludovico Boratto

  2. Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Stefano Faralli

  3. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland

    Mirko Marras

  4. University of L'Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Giovanni Stilo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Beretta, E., Vetrò, A., Lepri, B., De Martin, J.C. (2021). Equality of Opportunity in Ranking: A Fair-Distributive Model. In: Boratto, L., Faralli, S., Marras, M., Stilo, G. (eds) Advances in Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval. BIAS 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1418. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78818-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78818-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78817-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78818-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation