mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Metrics

arXiv 2202.01615 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2022cs.CY cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The harmful impacts of algorithmic decision systems have recently come into focus, with many examples of systems such as machine learning (ML) models amplifying existing societal biases. Most metrics attempting to quantify disparities resulting from ML algorithms focus on differences between groups, dividing users based on demographic identities and comparing model performance or overall outcomes between these groups. However, in industry settings, such information is often not available, and inferring these characteristics carries its own risks and biases. Moreover, typical metrics that focus on a single classifier's output ignore the complex network of systems that produce outcomes in real-world settings. In this paper, we evaluate a set of metrics originating from economics, distributional inequality metrics, and their ability to measure disparities in content exposure in a production recommendation system, the Twitter algorithmic timeline. We define desirable criteria for metrics to be used in an operational setting, specifically by ML practitioners. We characterize different types of engagement with content on Twitter using these metrics, and use these results to evaluate the metrics with respect to the desired criteria. We show that we can use these metrics to identify content suggestion algorithms that contribute more strongly to skewed outcomes between users. Overall, we conclude that these metrics can be useful tools for understanding disparate outcomes in online social networks.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2022.

Builds on

15 of 44 references.

References · 15

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  2. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  3. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 189
  4. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
  5. 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
  6. 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
  7. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  8. 2019Quantifying the Impact of User Attention on Fair Group Representation in Ranked Listscited by 24
  9. 2020From Optimizing Engagement to Measuring Valuecited by 21
  10. 2017Quantifying Search Bias: Investigating Sources of Bias for Political Searches in Social Mediacited by 18
  11. 2020Comparing Fair Ranking Metricscited by 8
  12. 2020Fairness through Experimentation: Inequality in A/B testing as an approach to responsible designcited by 4
3 more
  1. 2021Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 4
  2. 2021A simple method for measuring inequalitycited by 3
  3. 2016Attention Inequality in Social Mediacited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

8 papers.