Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search

We present a framework for quantifying and mitigating algorithmic bias in mechanisms designed for ranking individuals, typically used as part of web-scale search and recommendation systems. We first propose complementary measures to quantify bias with respect to protected attributes such as gender and age. We then present algorithms for computing fairness-aware re-ranking of results. For a given search or recommendation task, our algorithms seek to achieve a desired distribution of top ranked results with respect to one or more protected attributes. We show that such a framework can be tailored to achieve fairness criteria such as equality of opportunity and demographic parity depending on the choice of the desired distribution. We evaluate the proposed algorithms via extensive simulations over different parameter choices, and study the effect of fairness-aware ranking on both bias and utility measures. We finally present the online A/B testing results from applying our framework towards representative ranking in LinkedIn Talent Search, and discuss the lessons learned in practice. Our approach resulted in tremendous improvement in the fairness metrics (nearly three fold increase in the number of search queries with representative results) without affecting the business metrics, which paved the way for deployment to 100% of LinkedIn Recruiter users worldwide. Ours is the first large-scale deployed framework for ensuring fairness in the hiring domain, with the potential positive impact for more than 630M LinkedIn members.Comment: This paper has been accepted for publication at ACM KDD 201

Equality of Voice: Towards Fair Representation in Crowdsourced Top-K Recommendations

To help their users to discover important items at a particular time, major websites like Twitter, Yelp, TripAdvisor or NYTimes provide Top-K recommendations (e.g., 10 Trending Topics, Top 5 Hotels in Paris or 10 Most Viewed News Stories), which rely on crowdsourced popularity signals to select the items. However, different sections of a crowd may have different preferences, and there is a large silent majority who do not explicitly express their opinion. Also, the crowd often consists of actors like bots, spammers, or people running orchestrated campaigns. Recommendation algorithms today largely do not consider such nuances, hence are vulnerable to strategic manipulation by small but hyper-active user groups. To fairly aggregate the preferences of all users while recommending top-K items, we borrow ideas from prior research on social choice theory, and identify a voting mechanism called Single Transferable Vote (STV) as having many of the fairness properties we desire in top-K item (s)elections. We develop an innovative mechanism to attribute preferences of silent majority which also make STV completely operational. We show the generalizability of our approach by implementing it on two different real-world datasets. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, we show that our proposed approach provides maximum user satisfaction, and cuts down drastically on items disliked by most but hyper-actively promoted by a few users.Comment: In the proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '19). Please cite the conference versio

Gender Stereotype Reinforcement: Measuring the Gender Bias Conveyed by Ranking Algorithms

Search Engines (SE) have been shown to perpetuate well-known gender stereotypes identified in psychology literature and to influence users accordingly. Similar biases were found encoded in Word Embeddings (WEs) learned from large online corpora. In this context, we propose the Gender Stereotype Reinforcement (GSR) measure, which quantifies the tendency of a SE to support gender stereotypes, leveraging gender-related information encoded in WEs. Through the critical lens of construct validity, we validate the proposed measure on synthetic and real collections. Subsequently, we use GSR to compare widely-used Information Retrieval ranking algorithms, including lexical, semantic, and neural models. We check if and how ranking algorithms based on WEs inherit the biases of the underlying embeddings. We also consider the most common debiasing approaches for WEs proposed in the literature and test their impact in terms of GSR and common performance measures. To the best of our knowledge, GSR is the first specifically tailored measure for IR, capable of quantifying representational harms.Comment: To appear in Information Processing & Managemen

Measuring Fairness in Ranked Results: An Analytical and Empirical Comparison

Information access systems, such as search and recommender systems, often use ranked lists to present results believed to be relevant to the user\u27s information need. Evaluating these lists for their fairness along with other traditional metrics provides a more complete understanding of an information access system\u27s behavior beyond accuracy or utility constructs. To measure the (un)fairness of rankings, particularly with respect to the protected group(s) of producers or providers, several metrics have been proposed in the last several years. However, an empirical and comparative analyses of these metrics showing the applicability to specific scenario or real data, conceptual similarities, and differences is still lacking. We aim to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical application of these metrics. In this paper we describe several fair ranking metrics from the existing literature in a common notation, enabling direct comparison of their approaches and assumptions, and empirically compare them on the same experimental setup and data sets in the context of three information access tasks. We also provide a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of the design choices and parameter settings that go in to these metrics and point to additional work needed to improve fairness measurement

Interplay between upsampling and regularization for provider fairness in recommender systems

Considering the impact of recommendations on item providers is one of the duties of multi-sided recommender systems. Item providers are key stakeholders in online platforms, and their earnings and plans are influenced by the exposure their items receive in recommended lists. Prior work showed that certain minority groups of providers, characterized by a common sensitive attribute (e.g., gender or race), are being disproportionately affected by indirect and unintentional discrimination. Our study in this paper handles a situation where (i) the same provider is associated with multiple items of a list suggested to a user, (ii) an item is created by more than one provider jointly, and (iii) predicted user–item relevance scores are biasedly estimated for items of provider groups. Under this scenario, we assess disparities in relevance, visibility, and exposure, by simulating diverse representations of the minority group in the catalog and the interactions. Based on emerged unfair outcomes, we devise a treatment that combines observation upsampling and loss regularization, while learning user–item relevance scores. Experiments on real-world data demonstrate that our treatment leads to lower disparate relevance. The resulting recommended lists show fairer visibility and exposure, higher minority item coverage, and negligible loss in recommendation utility

Evaluating epistemic uncertainty under incomplete assessments

The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison

Evaluation metrics for measuring bias in search engine results

Search engines decide what we see for a given search query. Since many people are exposed to information through search engines, it is fair to expect that search engines are neutral. However, search engine results do not necessarily cover all the viewpoints of a search query topic, and they can be biased towards a specific view since search engine results are returned based on relevance, which is calculated using many features and sophisticated algorithms where search neutrality is not necessarily the focal point. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the search engine results with respect to bias. In this work we propose novel web search bias evaluation measures which take into account the rank and relevance. We also propose a framework to evaluate web search bias using the proposed measures and test our framework on two popular search engines based on 57 controversial query topics such as abortion, medical marijuana, and gay marriage. We measure the stance bias (in support or against), as well as the ideological bias (conservative or liberal). We observe that the stance does not necessarily correlate with the ideological leaning, e.g. a positive stance on abortion indicates a liberal leaning but a positive stance on Cuba embargo indicates a conservative leaning. Our experiments show that neither of the search engines suffers from stance bias. However, both search engines suffer from ideological bias, both favouring one ideological leaning to the other, which is more significant from the perspective of polarisation in our society