Detection of Groups with Biased Representation in Ranking
Jinyang Li, Yuval Moskovitch, H. V. Jagadish
Abstract
Real-life tools for decision-making in many critical domains are based on ranking results. With the increasing awareness of algorithmic fairness, recent works have presented measures for fairness in ranking. Many of those definitions consider the representation of different "protected groups", in the top-k ranked items, for any reasonable k. Given the protected groups, confirming algorithmic fairness is a simple task. However, the groups' definitions may be unknown in advance.
In this paper, we study the problem of detecting groups with biased representation in the top-k ranked items, eliminating the need to pre-define protected groups. The number of such groups possible can be exponential, making the problem hard. We propose efficient search algorithms for two different fairness measures: global representation bounds, and proportional representation. Then we propose a method to explain the bias in the representations of groups utilizing the notion of Shapley values. We conclude with an experimental study, showing the scalability of our approach and demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed algorithms.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- Understanding the Black Box: A Deep Empirical Dive into Shapley Value Approximations for Tabular DataSuchit Gupte, John PaparrizosSIGMOD 2025 · 19 citations
- Uncovering the Propensity Identification Problem in Debiased RecommendationsHonglei Zhang, Shuyi Wang, Haoxuan Li, Chunyuan Zheng et al.ICDE 2024 · 12 citations
- Query Refinement for Diverse Top-k SelectionFelix S. Campbell, Alon Silberstein, Julia Stoyanovich, Yuval MoskovitchSIGMOD 2024 · 6 citations
- Shapley Value Estimation based on Differential MatrixJunyuan Pang, Jian Pei, Haocheng Xia, Xiang Li et al.SIGMOD 2025 · 2 citations
- Causal Explanations for Disparate Trends: Where and Why?Tal Blau, Brit Youngmann, Anna Fariha, Yuval MoskovitchSIGMOD 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Fairness in Aggregation: Optimal Top- and Improved Full RankingDiptarka Chakraborty, Arya Mazumdar, Barna Saha, Alvin H YanICML 2026
- Fairness in Network Representation by Latent Structural Heterogeneity in Observational DataXin Du, Yulong Pei, Wouter Duivesteijn, Mykola PechenizkiyAAAI 2020 · 12 citations
- Estimation of Fair Ranking Metrics with Incomplete JudgmentsÖmer Kirnap, Fernando Diaz, Asia Biega, Michael D. Ekstrand et al.WWW 2021 · 40 citations
- Fair Ranking with Noisy Protected AttributesAnay Mehrotra, Nisheeth K. VishnoiNeurIPS 2022 · 24 citations
- Rank Aggregation Algorithms for Fair ConsensusCaitlin Kuhlman, Elke A. RundensteinerVLDB 2020 · 60 citations
