A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankings

Chiara Criscuolo; Davide Martinenghi; Giuseppe Piccirillo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankings

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This tutorial argues that fairness in rankings evaluated one protected attribute at a time can conceal discrimination against intersectional groups, so genuine fairness requires considering combined identities.

desk verdict A genuinely useful tutorial whose main flaws are overstated novelty and a fixable citation error in the summary table. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05333 v1 pith:YHPPO6KN submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CY cs.IRcs.LG

Chiara Criscuolo , Davide Martinenghi , Giuseppe Piccirillo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CYcs.IRcs.LG

keywords rankingintersectionalityfairnessprotectedattributesresponsibledatasciencealgorithmicbiasfairmethodsliteraturereview

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This tutorial argues that fairness in rankings is not enough: a ranking that treats each protected attribute (a category such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status) fairly one at a time can still discriminate against people who belong to several marginalized groups at once. Its central assertion is that fairness does not imply intersectionality—the combined effect of multiple social identities—so ranking systems should evaluate outcomes over combined identity groups rather than single attributes. The paper supports this by walking through examples, organizing existing methods into constraint-based, causal-model, and metrics-based approaches, and comparing them in a synoptic table. A sympathetic reader should care because the same logic applies wherever rankings decide who gets hired, admitted, recommended, or shown. The takeaway is that auditing fairness means asking whether each intersectional group is treated fairly, not just each single-axis group.

What carries the argument

The paper's argument is carried by a recurring example pattern in which per-attribute parity holds while intersectional parity fails: group proportions are equal for gender and for race, but at the intersection the acceptance rates split. This masking example is the load-bearing mechanism, because it converts the abstract claim 'fairness does not imply intersectionality' into a checkable pattern. The paper's organizational machinery is a three-way taxonomy: constraint-based methods, which add diversity or in-group fairness constraints to the ranking problem; inference model-based methods, which use structural causal models to compute counterfactually fair rankings (rankings produced as if sensitive attributes had different values); and metrics-based methods, which use evaluation measures such as skew, group rank, and ranking correlation designed to expose intersectional disparities. A synoptic table maps each method's task, input, output, pre- or post-processing placement, datasets, fairness metrics, performance metrics, and whether it discusses the utility-fairness balance.

What would settle it

Run a standard fairness audit on a public benchmark such as COMPAS or UCI Adult, computing parity for each protected attribute separately and for every intersection of the same attributes; a dataset in which single-attribute parity holds for all attributes while intersectional parity also holds for all groups would show that fairness without intersectionality does not always hide discrimination, and the frequency of such cases would bound the strength of the tutorial's claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that 'fairness without intersectionality often results in inadvertent discrimination.' The paper shows this through examples in which a hiring or ranking process appears balanced by gender and balanced by race, but fine-grained gender-race groups have sharply unequal acceptance rates; Black women or Hispanic men can be absent from the top of the list even when women and men, and different racial groups, are represented. It then reviews the literature to argue that most fairness-aware ranking methods, whether they enforce diversity constraints, learn from data with causal models, or measure fairness with metrics, treat protected attributes separately and therefore inherit this blind spot. Intersectional fairness, by contrast, treats the joint distribution of multiple protected attributes as the object of evaluation, and the paper argues that this can be implemented without a significant loss in utility.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparative conclusions depend on its selection of papers and the synoptic table being an accurate and complete picture of the field; if key methods are missing or mischaracterized, the comparison's lessons could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ranking systems that claim to be fair should be audited at the level of intersections, such as Black women or Hispanic men, rather than at the level of single attributes.
Conventional fairness metrics such as demographic parity and max-difference can understate or hide multi-dimensional disparities, so they should be supplemented with rank-based and correlation-based metrics.
Adding intersectionality does not have to come at the cost of utility; the reviewed methods show fairness can be restored with modest or no utility loss.
Fairness-aware methods that consider only one protected attribute at a time can perpetuate existing inequalities even when each protected group looks well served.
A workable intersectional approach also requires deciding an acceptable fairness threshold, and treating that choice as part of the model's ethical specification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An extension the authors leave implicit is a formal 'masking index' for the examples: the gap between the joint distribution of protected attributes and the product of its marginals would measure how much single-axis fairness can hide, and it could be computed on any benchmark dataset.
A second extension is to stress-test the tutorial's categories on non-binary and continuous protected attributes; most worked examples use binary or small discrete categories, and the paper only gestures at non-binary cases.
A practical consequence not spelled out in the paper is that procurement and audit checklists for algorithmic hiring should require intersectional breakdowns, because computing them is cheap once categories are chosen and the paper's examples show they can reverse a fairness verdict.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read of arXiv:2502.05333. It's a tutorial, not a research result, and the sooner the authors stop framing it as 'our analysis shows' the better it will be. The central message is correct: a ranking that satisfies fairness for each protected attribute separately can still hide discrimination against intersectional groups. That's a point worth making clearly, and the paper makes it with three concrete examples in the introduction and a longer worked example for each method category. Those examples are the best part of the paper. They're concrete, easy to follow, and give a practitioner a real sense of how constraint-based, inference-based, and metrics-based methods differ.

The taxonomy is coherent. Constraint-based methods impose quotas or fairness constraints; inference-based methods use causal models to remove discriminatory pathways; metrics-based methods propose new ways to measure intersectional disparity. That's a reasonable organizing scheme, and the synoptic table, once fixed, will be a useful comparison tool.

The soft spots are mostly about overclaiming. The introduction says the paper provides an 'exhaustive analysis' of the literature, but it covers about twelve papers selected without any stated search protocol. There's significant work on intersectional fairness outside ranking (and arguably inside ranking) that isn't included. For a tutorial, that's not fatal, but the word 'exhaustive' should go. Similarly, the paper says it 'shows' that intersectionality can be added without utility loss. What it actually does is cite [55] and a few others where the authors reported such results. That's a difference between summarizing evidence and generating evidence. The claim should be attributed to the cited papers, not presented as a finding of this work.

The mislabeling in Table 3 is real: the row describing Wang et al. is labeled [59] but that reference is Lum et al., which already appears in the row above. The correct citation is [60]. It's an easy fix, but as printed it undermines confidence in the table.

The conceptual examples are internally consistent, and I don't see any circular reasoning. The background sections on ranking, bias, and fairness are solid, though they lean on the authors' own prior work in places; that's fine as long as the work is relevant.

Who is this for? A reader new to fair ranking who wants an entry point to intersectionality will get real value from the examples and the taxonomy. An instructor preparing a lecture on algorithmic fairness could use this as a readable introduction. A researcher already in the field won't find new results, but might cite it as a survey reference. As it stands, I'd want minor revisions before accepting it anywhere: fix the citation error, soften 'exhaustive' and 'shows,' and add a sentence about how the papers were selected. With those changes, it's a solid tutorial. Without them, it's still useful but a bit sloppy in its self-presentation.

Yes, I'd send it to peer review, but for a tutorial or survey track, not as a regular research paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a tutorial-style survey arguing that fairness-aware ranking methods that treat protected attributes one at a time can hide discrimination against intersectional groups. It develops worked examples, organizes the literature into constraint-based, inference model-based, and metrics-based methods, and provides a synoptic table intended to support comparison of twelve papers. The central thesis is that fairness alone does not imply intersectionality, and the authors further claim that incorporating intersectionality into fair rankings can be done without significant utility loss.

Significance. If its claims are appropriately qualified, this would be a useful pedagogical survey for researchers entering fair-ranking work: the three-category taxonomy is coherent, the worked examples are concrete, and the synoptic table is a convenient starting point for method selection. The paper also gives explicit attention to critical perspectives on intersectionality, which is commendable. Its main value is synthetic rather than novel: no new method or experiment is presented, and the force of the empirical claims depends on the completeness and accuracy of the literature selection. Those claims need correction before the tutorial can serve as a reliable reference.

major comments (3)

[§1 and §4.4] The paper describes its survey as an 'exhaustive analysis' and uses this to support the general claim that 'fairness without intersectionality often results in inadvertent discrimination,' but no search protocol, inclusion criteria, publication window, or coverage statement is provided. With twelve selected papers, the review is necessarily selective; the word 'exhaustive' and the unqualified 'often' overstate the evidence. Please either document the selection methodology transparently or replace the completeness claims with a clearly scoped statement of coverage.
[§4.4.3 and §1] The assertion that 'incorporating intersectionality in fair rankings does not necessarily lead to a significant loss in utility' and the stronger Introduction claim that the paper 'shows' this are not established within the manuscript. No experiments are reported, and the Section 4.4.3 support rests on a single cited paper, [55], plus qualitative examples. Since this is a load-bearing part of the tutorial's practical message, either add a small empirical comparison of representative methods or downgrade the claim to a conjecture drawn from the cited literature rather than a demonstrated finding.
[Table 3] The Metrics-Based block contains a duplicate row label: the row whose Task is 'Highlight the inadequacies of current evaluation methods in intersectionality' is headed [59], but its content matches Section 4.3.3, which correctly cites [60] (Wang et al. 'Towards intersectionality in machine learning'). Reference [59] (Lum et al.) is already assigned to the preceding row. This citation mismatch breaks the row-reference correspondence that the synoptic table is supposed to provide; correct the label and audit the remaining rows against the bibliography.

minor comments (5)

[Table 3] In the [31] row, the Fairness Metrics and Performance Metrics cells are empty even though Section 4.1.4 discusses fairness constraints and approximation behavior; either fill these cells from the cited paper or state explicitly that the original work reports no quantitative fairness metrics.
[§4.1.1] The IGF-Aggregated formula uses subscripts A_{i,v} and I_{i,v} that are only loosely tied to the earlier definitions of A_v and I_v; please define these sets explicitly so the numerator and denominator are unambiguous.
[Example 6] The line introducing the second group reads 'Groups B:' with a plural; it should be 'Group B:'.
[References] Reference [74] is titled 'Machine bias: Risk assessments in criminal sentencing,' but it is listed as the US Department of Transportation flight on-time database; this appears to be a copied title from [73] and should be corrected.
[§4.3.2] The notation Y_k = m(w_k, f(x_k)) is introduced without explaining the role of the weights w_k in the group-wise performance metric; a brief definition would help the reader connect the notation to the double-corrected estimator that follows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the tutorial's claims are a synthesis of external works and constructed examples; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

This paper is a tutorial and literature survey rather than a derivation. It makes no prediction from fitted parameters and contains no formal chain of equations that reduces to its own inputs. The central claim, that fairness without intersectionality can conceal discrimination against intersectional groups, is supported by external examples (e.g., Example 1 from [15], Example 2 from [16]) and by a review of methods proposed by other research groups. The statement 'our analysis shows that fairness without intersectionality often results in inadvertent discrimination' is a summarization of the reviewed literature, not a result obtained by deriving one quantity from another. The authors do cite their own prior work in the background sections on ranking, skylines, and stability (e.g., [20,25,26,28,30,31,38,42,43]), but those citations are not load-bearing for the intersectionality argument: they do not define the key concepts of intersectionality, nor do they supply a 'uniqueness theorem' or an ansatz that forces the paper's conclusion. None of the self-citations is invoked to rule out alternative approaches to intersectional fairness. The paper's weaknesses are accuracy/verifiability concerns rather than circularity: the 'exhaustive analysis' claim lacks a stated search protocol, and Table 3 duplicates the [59] label, labeling the Wang et al. row [59] when it should be [60]. These issues affect the reliability of the survey's empirical generalization about 'often,' but they do not make the argument circular. Since no specific circular step can be exhibited, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The tutorial makes no numerical fits and postulates no new entities. It rests on normative and methodological assumptions: that intersectionality is a necessary component of fairness, that the reviewed literature is representative enough for a comparative table, and that causal-model methods can correctly encode the data-generating process. The free-parameter and invented-entity lists are empty.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Intersectionality is a necessary component of fairness in ranking
The paper's central thesis treats this as a normative premise, asserted in Sections 1 and 5 rather than derived.
domain assumption The reviewed set of papers is sufficiently representative to support an exhaustive comparison
The comparative table claims exhaustiveness; the duplicate table entry and selection criteria are not justified with a systematic search protocol.
domain assumption Causal models in Section 4.2 correctly specify the data-generating process
The paper presents SCM-based methods [16,56] and acknowledges they rely on strong causal assumptions; used to argue counterfactual fairness.
domain assumption Protected attributes are known or inferable
Most reviewed methods assume protected attributes; only [55] addresses noise; this underlies the feasibility of intersectional fairness.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHPPO6KN

@misc{pith2026250205333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHPPO6KN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05333}
}

read the original abstract

We address the critical issue of biased algorithms and unfair rankings, which have permeated various sectors, including search engines, recommendation systems, and workforce management. These biases can lead to discriminatory outcomes in a data-driven world, especially against marginalized and underrepresented groups. Efforts towards responsible data science and responsible artificial intelligence aim to mitigate these biases and promote fairness, diversity, and transparency. However, most fairness-aware ranking methods singularly focus on protected attributes such as race, gender, or socio-economic status, neglecting the intersectionality of these attributes, i.e., the interplay between multiple social identities. Understanding intersectionality is crucial to ensure that existing inequalities are not preserved by fair rankings. We offer a description of the main ways to incorporate intersectionality in fair ranking systems through practical examples and provide a comparative overview of existing literature and a synoptic table summarizing the various methodologies. Our analysis highlights the need for intersectionality to attain fairness, while also emphasizing that fairness, alone, does not necessarily imply intersectionality.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

[55]

Mitigating bias in set s election with noisy protected attributes

Anay Mehrotra and L Elisa Celis. Mitigating bias in set s election with noisy protected attributes. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 237–248, 2021

work page 2021
[59]

De-bias ing “bias” measurement

Kristian Lum, Y unfeng Zhang, and Amanda Bower. De-bias ing “bias” measurement. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 379–389, 2022

work page 2022
[60]

Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresentation , and performing evaluation

Angelina Wang, Vikram V Ramaswamy, and Olga Russakovsk y. Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresentation , and performing evaluation. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 336–349, 2022

work page 2022
[1]

Searc h results diversiﬁcation for effective fair ranking in academic search

Graham McDonald, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. Searc h results diversiﬁcation for effective fair ranking in academic search. Information Retrieval Journal, 24(5):399–422, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview

Evaggelia Pitoura, Kostas Stefanidis, and Georgia Kout rika. Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview. The VLDB Journal , pages 1–28, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Loss compensation in multi-session recommendation under limited availability

Davide Azzalini, Fabio Azzalini, Chiara Criscuolo, Tom maso Dolci, Davide Martinenghi, and Sihem Amer- Y ahia. Loss compensation in multi-session recommendation under limited availability. In Letizia Tanca, Qiong Luo, Giuseppe Polese, Loredana Caruccio, Xavier Oriol, and Donatella Firmani, editors, Proceedings 27th In- ternational Conference on Extending ...

work page 2024
[4]

T he role of relevance in fair ranking

Aparna Balagopalan, Abigail Z Jacobs, and Asia J Biega. T he role of relevance in fair ranking. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research a nd Development in Information Retrieval , pages 1933–1937, 2023

work page 1933
[5]

Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: a multidisciplinary survey

Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J Dennis, D avid Graus, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: a multidisciplinary survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13933, 2023

arXiv 2023

Show all 77 references

[6]

Fairness in crowdsourcing

Yiling Chen, Nihar B Shah, and David C Parkes. Fairness in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP) , pages 119–128, 2019

2019
[7]

Fairness in ranki ng and selection

Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. Fairness in ranki ng and selection. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & D ata Mining, pages 2219–2228, 2018

2018
[8]

Crowdsourcing for top-k query processing over uncertain data

Eleonora Ciceri, Piero Fraternali, Davide Martinenghi , and Marco Tagliasacchi. Crowdsourcing for top-k query processing over uncertain data. In 32nd IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, IC DE 2016, Helsinki, Finland, May 16-20, 2016 , pages 1452–1453. IEEE Compu...

2016
[9]

Fairness in ranking, part i: Score-based ranking

Meike Zehlike, Ke Y ang, and Julia Stoyanovich. Fairness in ranking, part i: Score-based ranking. ACM Comput- ing Surveys, 55(6):1–36, 2022

2022
[10]

Fairnes s in ranking, part ii: Learning-to-rank and recommender systems

Meike Zehlike, Ke Y ang, and Julia Stoyanovich. Fairnes s in ranking, part ii: Learning-to-rank and recommender systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(6):1–41, 2022

2022
[11]

Respons ible data management

Julia Stoyanovich, Bill Howe, and HV Jagadish. Respons ible data management. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 13(12), 2020

2020
[12]

Teaching respons ible data science: Charting new pedagogical territory

Armanda Lewis and Julia Stoyanovich. Teaching respons ible data science: Charting new pedagogical territory. International Journal of Artiﬁcial Intelligence in Educat ion, pages 1–25, 2021

2021
[13]

The many f acets of data equity

H Jagadish, Julia Stoyanovich, and Bill Howe. The many f acets of data equity. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 14(4):1–21, 2022

2022
[14]

Mapping the margins: Intersection ality, identity politics, and violence against women of color

Kimberle Crenshaw. Mapping the margins: Intersection ality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev., 43:1241, 1990

1990
[15]

Infofair: Information-theoretic intersectional fairness

Jian Kang, Tiankai Xie, Xintao Wu, Ross Maciejewski, an d Hanghang Tong. Infofair: Information-theoretic intersectional fairness. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) , pages 1455–1464. IEEE, 2022

2022
[16]

Causal intersectionality for fair ranking

Ke Y ang, Joshua R Loftus, and Julia Stoyanovich. Causal intersectionality for fair ranking. In K. Ligett & S. Gupta (Eds.), 2nd Symposium on F oundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2021) , pages 7:1–7:20, 2021

2021
[17]

E. Berger. Csrankings: Computer science rankings. Online, retrieved
[18]

Ilyas, George Beskales, and Mohamed A

Ihab F. Ilyas, George Beskales, and Mohamed A. Soliman. A survey of top- k query processing techniques in relational database systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 40(4):11:1–11:58, 2008

2008
[19]

The skyline operator

Stephan Börzsönyi, Donald Kossmann, and Konrad Stocke r. The skyline operator. In Dimitrios Georgakopoulos and Alexander Buchmann, editors, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Data Engineering, April 2-6, 2001, Heidelberg, Germany , pages 421–430. IEEE Computer...

2001
[20]

Flexible skylin es: Dominance for arbitrary sets of monotone functions

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. Flexible skylin es: Dominance for arbitrary sets of monotone functions. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 45(4):18:1–18:45, 2020

2020
[21]

Marrying t op-k with skyline queries: Relaxing the preference input while producing output of controllable size

Kyriakos Mouratidis, Keming Li, and Bo Tang. Marrying t op-k with skyline queries: Relaxing the preference input while producing output of controllable size. In Guoli ang Li, Zhanhuai Li, Stratos Idreos, and Divesh Srivastava, editors, SIGMOD ’21: International Conference on M...

2021
[22]

Lipton, and Jun (Jim) Xu

Danupon Nanongkai, Atish Das Sarma, Ashwin Lall, Richa rd J. Lipton, and Jun (Jim) Xu. Regret-minimizing representative databases. Proc. VLDB Endow., 3(1):1114–1124, 2010

2010
[23]

Abolfazl Asudeh, H. V . Jagadish, Gerome Miklau, and Jul ia Stoyanovich. On obtaining stable rankings. Proc. VLDB Endow., 12(3):237–250, nov 2018

2018
[24]

Bergman, Vittorio Castell i, Chung-Sheng Li, Ming-Ling Lo, and John R

Y uan-Chi Chang, Lawrence D. Bergman, Vittorio Castell i, Chung-Sheng Li, Ming-Ling Lo, and John R. Smith. The onion technique: Indexing for linear optimization quer ies. In Weidong Chen, Jeffrey F. Naughton, and Philip A. Bernstein, editors, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD...

2000
[25]

Reconciling sky line and ranking queries

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. Reconciling sky line and ranking queries. Proc. VLDB Endow. , 10(11):1454–1465, 2017

2017
[26]

FA + TA < FSA: Flex ible score aggregation

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. FA + TA < FSA: Flex ible score aggregation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2018, T orino, Italy, October 22-26, 2018, pages 57–66, 2018

2018
[27]

Beyond skyline a nd ranking queries: Restricted skylines (extended abstract)

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. Beyond skyline a nd ranking queries: Restricted skylines (extended abstract). In Sonia Bergamaschi, Tommaso Di Noia, and Andre a Maurino, editors, Proceedings of the 26th Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems, Castellan eta Marina...

2018
[28]

Marcos V . N. Bedo, Paolo Ciaccia, Davide Martinenghi, a nd Daniel de Oliveira. A k-skyband approach for fea- ture selection. In Giuseppe Amato, Claudio Gennaro, Vincen t Oria, and Milos Radovanovic, editors, Similarity Search and Applications - 12th International Conference, ...

2019
[29]

Flexible score a ggregation (extended abstract)

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. Flexible score a ggregation (extended abstract). In Massimo Mecella, Giuseppe Amato, and Claudio Gennaro, editors, Proceedings of the 27th Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems, Castiglione della Pescaia (Grosseto), I taly, June 1...

2019
[30]

Ranking with uncertain scoring functions: semantics and sensitivity measures

Mohamed A Soliman, Ihab F Ilyas, Davide Martinenghi, an d Marco Tagliasacchi. Ranking with uncertain scoring functions: semantics and sensitivity measures. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data , pages 805–816, 2011

2011
[31]

Designing fair ranking schemes

Abolfazl Asudeh, HV Jagadish, Julia Stoyanovich, and G autam Das. Designing fair ranking schemes. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 international conference on managemen t of data, pages 1259–1276, 2019

2019
[32]

Directional que ries: Making top-k queries more effective in discovering relevant results

Paolo Ciaccia and Davide Martinenghi. Directional que ries: Making top-k queries more effective in discovering relevant results. Proc. ACM Manag. Data, 3(to appear), 2025

2025
[33]

Bias in computer s ystems

Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. Bias in computer s ystems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 14(3):330–347, 1996

1996
[34]

On measuring bias in online information

Evaggelia Pitoura, Panayiotis Tsaparas, Giorgos Flou ris, Irini Fundulaki, Panagiotis Papadakos, Serge Abiteboul, and Gerhard Weikum. On measuring bias in online information . ACM SIGMOD Record, 46(4):16–21, 2018

2018
[35]

Social-minded measures of data qua lity: fairness, diversity, and lack of bias

Evaggelia Pitoura. Social-minded measures of data qua lity: fairness, diversity, and lack of bias. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ) , 12(3):1–8, 2020

2020
[36]

A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning

Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kr istina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 54(6):1–35, 2021

2021
[37]

Bias on the web

Ricardo Baeza-Y ates. Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM , 61(6):54–61, 2018

2018
[38]

Un derstanding fairness requirements for ml-based software

Luciano Baresi, Chiara Criscuolo, and Carlo Ghezzi. Un derstanding fairness requirements for ml-based software. In 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Con ference (RE), pages 341–346. IEEE, 2023

2023
[39]

Dealing w ith bias and fairness in data science systems: A practical hands-on tutorial

Pedro Saleiro, Kit T Rodolfa, and Rayid Ghani. Dealing w ith bias and fairness in data science systems: A practical hands-on tutorial. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conferenc e on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 3513–3514, 2020

2020
[40]

Evaluation: From precision, recall and f -factor to roc, informedness, markedness & correlation

David Powers. Evaluation: From precision, recall and f -factor to roc, informedness, markedness & correlation. Mach. Learn. T echnol., 2, 01 2008

2008
[41]

Search result div ersiﬁcation

Marina Drosou and Evaggelia Pitoura. Search result div ersiﬁcation. SIGMOD Record, 39(1):41–47, 2010

2010
[42]

Top-k bounded diversiﬁcation

Piero Fraternali, Davide Martinenghi, and Marco Tagli asacchi. Top-k bounded diversiﬁcation. In K. Selçuk Candan, Yi Chen, Richard T. Snodgrass, Luis Gravano, and Ari el Fuxman, editors, Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIG MOD 2012...

2012
[43]

Top-k diversity queries over bounded regions

Ilio Catallo, Eleonora Ciceri, Piero Fraternali, Davi de Martinenghi, and Marco Tagliasacchi. Top-k diversity queries over bounded regions. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 38(2):10, 2013

2013
[44]

Online set selection with fairness and diversity constraints

Julia Stoyanovich, Ke Y ang, and HV Jagadish. Online set selection with fairness and diversity constraints. In Proceedings of the EDBT Conference , 2018

2018
[45]

User fairness, item f airness, and diversity for rankings in two-sided markets

Lequn Wang and Thorsten Joachims. User fairness, item f airness, and diversity for rankings in two-sided markets. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval , pages 23– 41, 2021

2021
[46]

A nutritional label for rankings

Ke Y ang, Julia Stoyanovich, Abolfazl Asudeh, Bill Howe , HV Jagadish, and Gerome Miklau. A nutritional label for rankings. In Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on manage ment of data , pages 1773–1776, 2018

2018
[47]

Intersectionality

Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge. Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons, 2020

2020
[48]

Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimi- nation doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics

Kimberlé Crenshaw. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimi- nation doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. u. Chi. Legal f., page 139, 1989

1989
[49]

Unleashed and unbound: Living textualism in bostock v

Nelson Lund. Unleashed and unbound: Living textualism in bostock v. clayton county. Clayton County (July 14, 2020). Federalist Society Review, 21:20–15, 2020

2020
[50]

Black feminist thought: Knowle dge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment

Patricia Hill Collins. Black feminist thought: Knowle dge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. 1990

1990
[51]

The body politic: Gender, the right wing a nd ‘identity category violations’

Lisa Downing. The body politic: Gender, the right wing a nd ‘identity category violations’. French Cultural Studies, 29(4):367–377, 2018

2018
[52]

Decolonizing the intersection: Black ma le studies as a critique of intersectionality’s indebted- ness to subculture of violence theory

Tommy J Curry. Decolonizing the intersection: Black ma le studies as a critique of intersectionality’s indebted- ness to subculture of violence theory. In Critical Psychology Praxis, pages 132–154. Routledge, 2021

2021
[53]

balanced ra nking with diversity constraints

K. Y ang, V . Gkatzelis, and J. Stoyanovich. “balanced ra nking with diversity constraints”. In S. Kraus, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conf erence on Artiﬁcial Intelligence, IJCAI 2019, Macao, China, August 10-16 , page 6035–6042, 2019

2019
[54]

In terventions for ranking in the presence of implicit bias

L Elisa Celis, Anay Mehrotra, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. In terventions for ranking in the presence of implicit bias. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountabi lity, and Transparency, pages 369–380, 2020

2020
[56]

Causal multi-lev el fairness

Vishwali Mhasawade and Rumi Chunara. Causal multi-lev el fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 784–794, 2021

2021
[57]

When fair ranking meets uncertain inference

Avijit Ghosh, Ritam Dutt, and Christo Wilson. When fair ranking meets uncertain inference. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research a nd development in information retrieval , pages 1033–1043, 2021

2021
[58]

Fairness-aware ranking in search & recommen- dation systems with application to linkedin talent search

Sahin Cem Geyik, Stuart Ambler, and Krishnaram Kenthap adi. Fairness-aware ranking in search & recommen- dation systems with application to linkedin talent search. In Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 2221–...

2019
[61]

Maurice G. Kendall. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1/2):81–93, 1938

1938
[62]

Ronald A. Fisher. Statistical Methods for Research W orkers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1925

1925
[63]

Fair canary: Rapid continuous explainable fairness

Avijit Ghosh, Aalok Shanbhag, and Christo Wilson. Fair canary: Rapid continuous explainable fairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, a nd Society, pages 307–316, 2022

2022
[64]

Mani-rank: Multiple attribute and intersectional group fairness for consensus ranking

Kathleen Cachel, Elke Rundensteiner, and Lane Harriso n. Mani-rank: Multiple attribute and intersectional group fairness for consensus ranking. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineerin g (ICDE), pages 1124–1137. IEEE, 2022

2022
[65]

Mathematics without numbers

John G Kemeny. Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus, 88(4):577–591, 1959

1959
[66]

A reasonable social welfare functio n

Arthur H Copeland. A reasonable social welfare functio n. Technical report, Mimeo, University of Michigan USA, 1951. 25 A Tutorial On Intersectionality in Fair Rankings

1951
[67]

The schulze method of voting

Markus Schulze. The schulze method of voting. 03 2018

2018
[68]

Mémoire sur les élections au scr utin

Jean-Charles de Borda. Mémoire sur les élections au scr utin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences , 1781
[69]

The m edical expenditure panel survey: a national information resource to support healthcare cost research a nd inform policy and practice

Joel W Cohen, Steven B Cohen, and Jessica S Banthin. The m edical expenditure panel survey: a national information resource to support healthcare cost research a nd inform policy and practice. pages S44–S50, 2009

2009
[70]

– IIT kanpur

JEETeam. – IIT kanpur. 2011

2011
[71]

Frequently occurring surnames f rom the census 2010, april 2020

USA The Census Bureau. Frequently occurring surnames f rom the census 2010, april 2020. 2010

2010
[72]

Age of reference person, b y total money income, type of family, race, and hispanic origin of reference person

United States Census Bureau. Age of reference person, b y total money income, type of family, race, and hispanic origin of reference person
[73]

Machine bias: Risk assessments in criminal sentencing

Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirc hner. Machine bias: Risk assessments in criminal sentencing. 2016

2016
[74]

Machine b ias: Risk assessments in criminal sentencing

United States Department of Transportation. Machine b ias: Risk assessments in criminal sentencing. 2016

2016
[75]

Moshe Lichman et al. 2013

2013
[77]

Crunchbase entrepreneurs ranking
[78]

Equestrian ranking fei

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [55]

Mitigating bias in set s election with noisy protected attributes

Anay Mehrotra and L Elisa Celis. Mitigating bias in set s election with noisy protected attributes. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 237–248, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [59]

De-bias ing “bias” measurement

Kristian Lum, Y unfeng Zhang, and Amanda Bower. De-bias ing “bias” measurement. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 379–389, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [60]

Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresentation , and performing evaluation

Angelina Wang, Vikram V Ramaswamy, and Olga Russakovsk y. Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresentation , and performing evaluation. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 336–349, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [1]

Searc h results diversiﬁcation for effective fair ranking in academic search

Graham McDonald, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. Searc h results diversiﬁcation for effective fair ranking in academic search. Information Retrieval Journal, 24(5):399–422, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [2]

Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview

Evaggelia Pitoura, Kostas Stefanidis, and Georgia Kout rika. Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview. The VLDB Journal , pages 1–28, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [3]

Loss compensation in multi-session recommendation under limited availability

Davide Azzalini, Fabio Azzalini, Chiara Criscuolo, Tom maso Dolci, Davide Martinenghi, and Sihem Amer- Y ahia. Loss compensation in multi-session recommendation under limited availability. In Letizia Tanca, Qiong Luo, Giuseppe Polese, Loredana Caruccio, Xavier Oriol, and Donatella Firmani, editors, Proceedings 27th In- ternational Conference on Extending ...

work page 2024

[7] [4]

T he role of relevance in fair ranking

Aparna Balagopalan, Abigail Z Jacobs, and Asia J Biega. T he role of relevance in fair ranking. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research a nd Development in Information Retrieval , pages 1933–1937, 2023

work page 1933

[8] [5]

Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: a multidisciplinary survey

Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J Dennis, D avid Graus, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: a multidisciplinary survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13933, 2023

arXiv 2023