Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Fairness in Ranking: A Survey

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 2103.14000 v3 pith:TOQ6Z6JD submitted 2021-03-25 cs.IR cs.DB

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

In the past few years, there has been much work on incorporating fairness requirements into algorithmic rankers, with contributions coming from the data management, algorithms, information retrieval, and recommender systems communities. In this survey we give a systematic overview of this work, offering a broad perspective that connects formalizations and algorithmic approaches across subfields. An important contribution of our work is in developing a common narrative around the value frameworks that motivate specific fairness-enhancing interventions in ranking. This allows us to unify the presentation of mitigation objectives and of algorithmic techniques to help meet those objectives or identify trade-offs. In this survey, we describe four classification frameworks for fairness-enhancing interventions, along which we relate the technical methods surveyed in this paper, discuss evaluation datasets, and present technical work on fairness in score-based ranking. Then, we present methods that incorporate fairness in supervised learning, and also give representative examples of recent work on fairness in recommendation and matchmaking systems. We also discuss evaluation frameworks for fair score-based ranking and fair learning-to-rank, and draw a set of recommendations for the evaluation of fair ranking methods.

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. Completeness of Datasets Documentation on ML/AI repositories: an Empirical Investigation

    cs.DL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most popular ML/AI datasets are poorly documented, especially regarding collection, processing, and maintenance, according to a manual audit of 100 datasets across four repositories.

  2. Beyond Exposure: Optimizing Ranking Fairness with Non-linear Time-Income Functions

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DIDRF optimizes ranking so cumulative provider income, not just exposure, is proportional to relevance under time-dependent exposure-to-income functions.

Pith tools