Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Quantifying the Impact of User Attention on Fair Group Representation in Ranked Lists

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 1901.10437 v2 pith:BNNTOPG7 submitted 2019-01-29 cs.CY

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

In this work, we introduce a novel metric for auditing group fairness in ranked lists. Our approach offers two benefits compared to the state of the art. First, we offer a blueprint for modeling of user attention. Rather than assuming a logarithmic loss in importance as a function of the rank, we can account for varying user behaviors through parametrization. For example, we expect a user to see more items during a viewing of a social media feed than when they inspect the results list of a single web search query. Second, we allow non-binary protected attributes to enable investigating inherently continuous attributes (\eg political alignment on the liberal to conservative spectrum) as well as to facilitate measurements across aggregated sets of search results, rather than separately for each result list. By combining these two elements into our metric, we are able to better address the human factors inherent in this problem. We measure the whole sociotechnical system, consisting of a ranking algorithm and individuals using it, instead of exclusively focusing on the ranking algorithm. Finally, we use our metric to perform three simulated fairness audits. We show that determining fairness of a ranked output necessitates knowledge (or a model) of the end-users of the particular service. Depending on their attention distribution function, a fixed ranking of results can appear biased both in favor and against a protected group.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Language Bias in Information Retrieval: The Nature of the Beast and Mitigation Methods

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Semantically parallel queries in 24 European languages get inconsistent rankings from BM25 and neural retrievers; a KL-divergence alignment loss (LaKDA) reduces the inconsistency.

  2. Towards Fair Rankings: Leveraging LLMs for Gender Bias Detection and Measurement

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLM-based three-class gender labeling agrees with human annotations better than the lexical NFaiRR score, and the proposed CWEx metric combines neutral exposure with male-female exposure disparity for ranking fairness...

Pith tools