Cited by 25Advanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchOptimization and Search ProblemsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Meritocratic Fairness for Infinite and Contextual Bandits

Joseph, Matthew, Kearns, Michael, Morgenstern, Jamie, Neel, Seth, Roth, Aaron·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

We study fairness in linear bandit problems. Starting from the notion of meritocratic fairness introduced in~\citeJKMR16, we carry out a more refined analysis of a more general problem, achieving better performance guarantees with fewer modelling assumptions on the number and structure of available choices as well as the number selected. We also analyze the previously-unstudied question of fairness in infinite linear bandit problems, obtaining instance-dependent regret upper bounds as well as lower bounds demonstrating that this instance-dependence is necessary. The result is a framework for meritocratic fairness in an online linear setting that is substantially more powerful, general, and realistic than the current state of the art.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3278721.3278764

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The main notions of fairness applied in the application of bandits are meritocratic fairness (group agnostic), subjective fairness (emphasises fairness in each time period) and counterfactual fairness.

    “The main notions of fairness applied in the application of bandits are meritocratic fairness [127,156,157] (group agnostic), subjective fairness [201] (emphasises fairness in each time period ) and counterfactual fairness (e.g.[146]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [157]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joseph, M., Kearns, M., Morgenstern, J., Neel, S., & Roth, A.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-12-27
Pages
158-163
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2909878761
Cited by
24
References
14
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Optimization and Search Problems
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
linear bandits, contextual bandits, regret bounds, lower bounds, online learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review