Ranking functions that are used in decision systems often produce disparate results for different populations because of bias in the underlying data. Addressing, and compensating for, these disparate outcomes is a critical problem for fair decision-making. Recent compensatory measures have mostly focused on opaque transformations of the ranking functions to satisfy fairness guarantees or on the use of quotas or set-asides to guarantee a minimum number of positive outcomes to members of underrepresented groups. In this paper we propose easily explainable data-driven compensatory measures for ranking functions. Our measures rely on the generation of bonus points given to members of underrepresented groups to address disparity in the ranking function. The bonus points can be set in advance, and can be combined, allowing for considering the intersections of representations and giving better transparency to stakeholders. We propose efficient sampling-based algorithms to calculate the number of bonus points to minimize disparity. We validate our algorithms using real-world school admissions and recidivism datasets, and compare our results with that of existing fair ranking algorithms.

Ranking functions are commonly used to assist in decision-making in a wide variety of applications. As the general public realizes the significant societal impacts of the widespread use of algorithms in decision-making, there has been a push towards explainability and transparency in decision processes and results, as well as demands to justify the fairness of the processes. In this paper, we focus on providing metrics towards explainability and transparency of ranking functions, with a focus towards making the ranking process understandable, a priori , so that decision-makers can make informed choices when designing their ranking selection process. We propose transparent participation metrics to clarify the ranking process, by assessing the contribution of each parameter used in the ranking function in the creation of the final ranked outcome, using information about the ranking functions themselves, as well as observations of the underlying distributions of the parameter values involved in the ranking. To evaluate the outcome of the ranking process, we propose diversity and disparity metrics to measure how similar the selected objects are to each other, and to the underlying data distribution. We evaluate the behavior of our metrics on synthetic data, as well as on data and ranking functions on two real-world scenarios: high school admissions and decathlon scoring.