Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases

L. Elisa Celis, Amit Kumar, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi, Andrew Xu
{"title":"Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases","authors":"L. Elisa Celis, Amit Kumar, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi, Andrew Xu","doi":"arxiv-2409.04897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the scenario in which there are multiple institutions,\neach with a limited capacity for candidates, and candidates, each with\npreferences over the institutions. A central entity evaluates the utility of\neach candidate to the institutions, and the goal is to select candidates for\neach institution in a way that maximizes utility while also considering the\ncandidates' preferences. The paper focuses on the setting in which candidates\nare divided into multiple groups and the observed utilities of candidates in\nsome groups are biased--systematically lower than their true utilities. The\nfirst result is that, in these biased settings, prior algorithms can lead to\nselections with sub-optimal true utility and significant discrepancies in the\nfraction of candidates from each group that get their preferred choices.\nSubsequently, an algorithm is presented along with proof that it produces\nselections that achieve near-optimal group fairness with respect to preferences\nwhile also nearly maximizing the true utility under distributional assumptions.\nFurther, extensive empirical validation of these results in real-world and\nsynthetic settings, in which the distributional assumptions may not hold, are\npresented.","PeriodicalId":501188,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.04897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper considers the scenario in which there are multiple institutions, each with a limited capacity for candidates, and candidates, each with preferences over the institutions. A central entity evaluates the utility of each candidate to the institutions, and the goal is to select candidates for each institution in a way that maximizes utility while also considering the candidates' preferences. The paper focuses on the setting in which candidates are divided into multiple groups and the observed utilities of candidates in some groups are biased--systematically lower than their true utilities. The first result is that, in these biased settings, prior algorithms can lead to selections with sub-optimal true utility and significant discrepancies in the fraction of candidates from each group that get their preferred choices. Subsequently, an algorithm is presented along with proof that it produces selections that achieve near-optimal group fairness with respect to preferences while also nearly maximizing the true utility under distributional assumptions. Further, extensive empirical validation of these results in real-world and synthetic settings, in which the distributional assumptions may not hold, are presented.
在存在偏差的情况下进行有偏好的集中选择
本文考虑了这样一种情况:有多个机构,每个机构对候选人的能力都是有限的,而每个候选人都对机构有偏好。一个中心实体会评估每个候选人对院校的效用,目标是在考虑候选人偏好的同时,以效用最大化的方式为每个院校选择候选人。本文的研究重点是这样一种情况,即考生被分为多个组别,而某些组别中考生的观测效用是有偏差的--系统性地低于他们的真实效用。本文的第一个结果是,在这些有偏差的环境中,先验算法可能会导致真实效用低于最优的选择,并且每个组中获得其偏好选择的候选人比例存在显著差异。随后,本文提出了一种算法,并证明该算法产生的选择在偏好方面实现了接近最优的组公平性,同时在分布假设下也几乎实现了真实效用的最大化。此外,本文还介绍了这些结果在现实世界和合成环境中的广泛经验验证,在这些环境中,分布假设可能不成立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信