Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPolicy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions
245
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Himank Yadav
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
While implicit feedback (e.g., clicks, dwell times, etc.) is an abundant and attractive source of data for learning to rank, it can produce unfair ranking policies for both exogenous and endogenous reasons. Exogenous reasons typically manifest themselves as biases in the training data, which then get reflected in the learned ranking policy and often lead to rich-get-richer dynamics. Moreover, even after the correction of such biases, reasons endogenous to the design of the learning algorithm can still lead to ranking policies that do not allocate exposure among items in a fair way. To address both exogenous and endogenous sources of unfairness, we present the first learning-to-rank approach that addresses both presentation bias and merit-based fairness of exposure simultaneously. Specifically, we define a class of amortized fairness-of-exposure constraints that can be chosen based on the needs of an application, and we show how these fairness criteria can be enforced despite the selection biases in implicit feedback data. The key result is an efficient and flexible policy-gradient algorithm, called FULTR, which is the first to enable the use of counterfactual estimators for both utility estimation and fairness constraints. Beyond the theoretical justification of the framework, we show empirically that the proposed algorithm can learn accurate and fair ranking policies from biased and noisy feedback.
rate research
Read More
Building fair machine learning models becomes more and more important. As many powerful models are built by collaboration among multiple parties, each holding some sensitive data, it is natural to explore the feasibility of training fair models in cross-silo federated learning so that fairness, privacy and collaboration can be fully respected simultaneously. However, it is a very challenging task, since it is far from trivial to accurately estimate the fairness of a model without knowing the private data of the participating parties. In this paper, we first propose a federated estimation method to accurately estimate the fairness of a model without infringing the data privacy of any party. Then, we use the fairness estimation to formulate a novel problem of training fair models in cross-silo federated learning. We develop FedFair, a well-designed federated learning framework, which can successfully train a fair model with high performance without any data privacy infringement. Our extensive experiments on three real-world data sets demonstrate the excellent fair model training performance of our method.
Policies trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) are often needlessly complex, making them more difficult to analyse and interpret. In a run with $n$ time steps, a policy will decide $n$ times on an action to take, even when only a tiny subset of these decisions deliver value over selecting a simple default action. Given a pre-trained policy, we propose a black-box method based on statistical fault localisation that ranks the states of the environment according to the importance of decisions made in those states. We evaluate our ranking method by creating new, simpler policies by pruning decisions identified as unimportant, and measure the impact on performance. Our experimental results on a diverse set of standard benchmarks (gridworld, CartPole, Atari games) show that in some cases less than half of the decisions made contribute to the expected reward. We furthermore show that the decisions made in the most frequently visited states are not the most important for the expected reward.
Search and recommendation systems, such as search engines, recruiting tools, online marketplaces, news, and social media, output ranked lists of content, products, and sometimes, people. Credit ratings, standardized tests, risk assessments output only a score, but are also used implicitly for ranking. Bias in such ranking systems, especially among the top ranks, can worsen social and economic inequalities, polarize opinions, and reinforce stereotypes. On the other hand, a bias correction for minority groups can cause more harm if perceived as favoring group-fair outcomes over meritocracy. In this paper, we formulate the problem of underranking in group-fair rankings, which was not addressed in previous work. Most group-fair ranking algorithms post-process a given ranking and output a group-fair ranking. We define underranking based on how close the group-fair rank of each item is to its original rank, and prove a lower bound on the trade-off achievable for simultaneous underranking and group fairness in ranking. We give a fair ranking algorithm that takes any given ranking and outputs another ranking with simultaneous underranking and group fairness guarantees comparable to the lower bound we prove. Our algorithm works with group fairness constraints for any number of groups. Our experimental results confirm the theoretical trade-off between underranking and group fairness, and also show that our algorithm achieves the best of both when compared to the state-of-the-art baselines.
In this paper we propose a causal modeling approach to intersectional fairness, and a flexible, task-specific method for computing intersectionally fair rankings. Rankings are used in many contexts, ranging from Web search results to college admissions, but causal inference for fair rankings has received limited attention. Additionally, the growing literature on causal fairness has directed little attention to intersectionality. By bringing these issues together in a formal causal framework we make the application of intersectionality in fair machine learning explicit, connected to important real world effects and domain knowledge, and transparent about technical limitations. We experimentally evaluate our approach on real and synthetic datasets, exploring its behaviour under different structural assumptions.
Off-policy evaluation (OPE) leverages data generated by other policies to evaluate a target policy. Previous OPE methods mainly focus on precisely estimating the true performance of a policy. We observe that in many applications, (1) the end goal of OPE is to compare two or multiple candidate policies and choose a good one, which is actually a much simpler task than evaluating their true performance; and (2) there are usually multiple policies that have been deployed in real-world systems and thus whose true performance is known through serving real users. Inspired by the two observations, in this work, we define a new problem, supervised off-policy ranking (SOPR), which aims to rank a set of new/target policies based on supervised learning by leveraging off-policy data and policies with known performance. We further propose a method for supervised off-policy ranking that learns a policy scoring model by correctly ranking training policies with known performance rather than estimating their precise performance. Our method leverages logged states and policies to learn a Transformer based model that maps offline interaction data including logged states and the actions taken by a target policy on these states to a score. Experiments on different games, datasets, training policy sets, and test policy sets show that our method outperforms strong baseline OPE methods in terms of both rank correlation and performance gap between the truly best and the best of the ranked top three policies. Furthermore, our method is more stable than baseline methods.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
