mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 1901.10437 ↗First posted 29 Jan 2019cs.CYcited by 24

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 24 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Jan 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 5; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

24 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2021Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisonscited by 42
  2. 2021When Fair Ranking Meets Uncertain Inferencecited by 22
  3. 2022Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directionscited by 21
  4. 2024Towards Fair RAG: On the Impact of Fair Ranking in Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 15
  5. 2023Invisible Relevance Bias: Text-Image Retrieval Models Prefer AI-Generated Imagescited by 13
  6. 2021Fairness Through Regularization for Learning to Rankcited by 8
  7. 2022Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Metricscited by 8
  8. 2021Individually Fair Rankingcited by 7
  9. 2021Fairness for Robust Learning to Rankcited by 6
  10. 2024Measuring and Addressing Indexical Bias in Information Retrievalcited by 6
  11. 2022Subverting Fair Image Search with Generative Adversarial Perturbationscited by 5
  12. 2024Language Fairness in Multilingual Information Retrievalcited by 5
12 more
  1. 2022Probabilistic Permutation Graph Search: Black-Box Optimization for Fairness in Rankingcited by 4
  2. 2023Fairness in Ranking under Disparate Uncertaintycited by 4
  3. 2024Measuring Bias in a Ranked List using Term-based Representationscited by 4
  4. 2023The Role of Relevance in Fair Rankingcited by 3
  5. 2025Unmasking Gender Bias in Recommendation Systems and Enhancing Category-Aware Fairnesscited by 3
  6. 2022Properties of Group Fairness Metrics for Rankingscited by 2
  7. 2025Language Bias in Information Retrieval: The Nature of the Beast and Mitigation Methodscited by 2
  8. 2026Does Reasoning Make Search More Fair? Comparing Fairness in Reasoning and Non-Reasoning Rerankerscited by 2
  9. 2025A Reproducibility Study of Product-side Fairness in Bundle Recommendationcited by 1
  10. 2024Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effectscited by 0
  11. 2025Towards Fair Rankings: Leveraging LLMs for Gender Bias Detection and Measurementcited by 0
  12. 2026Fairness in Link Prediction Beyond Demographic Parity: A Reproducibility Studycited by 0