skip to main content
10.1145/3578337.3605132acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

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

Published:09 August 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

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 However, most of the learning-based models were trained and tested on outdated datasets where fairness labels are barely available.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.

References

  1. Gabriel Bénédict Ali Vardasbi, Shashank Gupta, Maria Heuss, Pooya Khandel, Ming Li, and Fatemeh Sarvi. 2021. The University of Amsterdam at the TREC 2021 Fair Ranking Track. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Christopher JC Burges. 2010. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Learning, Vol. 11, 23--581 (2010), 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning. 129--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 335--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L Elisa Celis, Sayash Kapoor, Farnood Salehi, and Nisheeth Vishnoi. 2019. Controlling polarization in personalization: An algorithmic framework. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 160--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. 2017. Ranking with fairness constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06840 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fumian Chen and Hui Fang. 2022. An Exploration of Learning-to-re-rank Using a Two-step Framework for Fair Ranking. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sachin Pathiyan Cherumanal, Marwah Alaofi, Reham Abdullah Altalhi, Elham Naghizade, Falk Scholer, and Damiano Spina. 2022. RMIT CIDDA IR at the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sachin Pathiyan Cherumanal, Damiano Spina, Falk Scholer, and W Bruce Croft. 2021. RMIT at TREC 2021 Fair Ranking Track. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernando Diaz, Bhaskar Mitra, Michael D Ekstrand, Asia J Biega, and Ben Carterette. 2020. Evaluating stochastic rankings with expected exposure. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 275--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michael D Ekstrand, Graham McDonald, Amifa Raj, and Isaac Johnson. 2023. Overview of the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05558 (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruoyuan Gao, Yingqiang Ge, and Chirag Shah. 2022. FAIR: Fairness-aware information retrieval evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruoyuan Gao and Chirag Shah. 2021. Addressing bias and fairness in search systems. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 2643--2646.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Thomas Jaenich, Graham McDonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2021. University of Glasgow Terrier Team at the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Preethi Lahoti, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2019. ifair: Learning individually fair data representations for algorithmic decision making. In 2019 ieee 35th international conference on data engineering (icde). IEEE, 1334--1345.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tai Le Quy, Arjun Roy, Vasileios Iosifidis, Wenbin Zhang, and Eirini Ntoutsi. 2022. A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2022), e1452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A Python Toolkit for Reproducible Information Retrieval Research with Sparse and Dense Representations. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2021). 2356--2362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yuanhua Lv and ChengXiang Zhai. 2009. A comparative study of methods for estimating query language models with pseudo feedback. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. 1895--1898.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. MilkaLichtblau. [n.,d.]. DELTR-experiments/Data/Engineeringstudents at master · Milkalichtblau/DELTR-Experiments. https://github.com/MilkaLichtblau/DELTR-Experiments/tree/master/data/EngineeringStudents/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gourab K Patro, Lorenzo Porcaro, Laura Mitchell, Qiuyue Zhang, Meike Zehlike, and Nikhil Garg. 2022. Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12662 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. ProPublica. [n.,d.]. Compas recidivism risk score data and analysis. https://www.propublica.org/datastore/dataset/compas-recidivism-risk-score-data-and-analysisGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amifa Raj, Connor Wood, Ananda Montoly, and Michael D Ekstrand. 2020. Comparing fair ranking metrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01311 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Stephen Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1993. Okapi at TREC. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 109--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Tetsuya Sakai, Jin Young Kim, and Inho Kang. 2022. A Versatile Framework for Evaluating Ranked Lists in terms of Group Fairness and Relevance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00280 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Piotr Sapiezynski, Wesley Zeng, Ronald E Robertson, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2019. Quantifying the impact of user attentionon fair group representation in ranked lists. In Companion proceedings of the 2019 world wide web conference. 553--562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Julia Stoyanovich, Ke Yang, and HV Jagadish. 2018. Online set selection with fairness and diversity constraints. In Proceedings of the EDBT Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiao Wang, Craig Macdonald, Nicola Tonellotto, and Iadh Ounis. 2023. ColBERT-PRF: Semantic pseudo-relevance feedback for dense passage and document retrieval. ACM Transactions on the Web, Vol. 17, 1 (2023), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yuan Wang, Zhiqiang Tao, and Yi Fang. 2022. A Meta-learning Approach to Fair Ranking. (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yuyan Wang, Xuezhi Wang, Alex Beutel, Flavien Prost, Jilin Chen, and Ed H Chi. 2021. Understanding and improving fairness-accuracy trade-offs in multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1748--1757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ke Yang, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2019. Balanced ranking with diversity constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01747 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich. 2017. Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on scientific and statistical database management. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1569--1578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Meike Zehlike and Carlos Castillo. 2020. Reducing disparate exposure in ranking: A learning to rank approach. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 2849--2855.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Meike Zehlike, Philipp Hacker, and Emil Wiedemann. 2020. Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 34, 1 (2020), 163--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Meike Zehlike, Tom Sühr, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, and Sara Hajian. 2022. Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups. Information Processing & Management, Vol. 59, 1 (2022), 102707.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Meike Zehlike, Ke Yang, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2021. Fairness in ranking: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14000 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jin Zhuoqi, Hideo Joho, and Sumio Fujita. 2021. TKB48 at TREC 2021 Fairness Ranking Track. In Proceedings of TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

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

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICTIR '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval
          August 2023
          300 pages
          ISBN:9798400700736
          DOI:10.1145/3578337

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 August 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ICTIR '23 Paper Acceptance Rate30of73submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate209of482submissions,43%

          Upcoming Conference

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)132
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader