Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1610.08559 v1 pith:FHSTI3PO submitted 2016-10-26 cs.DB

classification cs.DB
keywords fairnessmeasuresrankedindividualsoutputsrankingdatasetsoutput
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Authorship attribution models misattribute texts to some authors far more often than chance, and the risk is highest for authors whose author embeddings sit near the centroid.

Pith tools