Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Himank Yadav

dblp:211/7842 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 60% Recommender systems · 40%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › ranking › learning to rank › unbiased learning to rank
counterfactual learning to rank
0.512021
Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions · SIGIR 2021
Recommender systems › fairness-aware recommendation
exposure fairness
0.512021
Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions · SIGIR 2021
Recommender systems
fairness-aware recommendation
0.512021
Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions · SIGIR 2021
Information retrieval › ranking › multi-objective ranking
fair ranking
0.512021
Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions · SIGIR 2021
Information retrieval › ranking
learning to rank
0.512021
Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions · SIGIR 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

policy gradient · 0.5counterfactual estimation · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Policy-Gradient Training of Fair and Unbiased Ranking Functions
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.
Himank Yadav, Zhengxiao Du, Thorsten Joachims
SIGIR1