Fairness of Exposure in Light of Incomplete Exposure Estimation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Fairness of exposure is a commonly used notion of fairness for ranking systems. It is based on the idea that all items or item groups should get exposure proportional to the merit of the item or the collective merit of the items in the group. Often, stochastic ranking policies are used to ensure fairness of exposure. Previous work unrealistically assumes that we can reliably estimate the expected exposure for all items in each ranking produced by the stochastic policy. In this work, we discuss how to approach fairness of exposure in cases where the policy contains rankings of which, due to inter-item dependencies, we cannot reliably estimate the exposure distribution. In such cases, we cannot determine whether the policy can be considered fair. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we define a method called FELIX for finding stochastic policies that avoid showing rankings with unknown exposure distribution to the user without having to compromise user utility or item fairness. Second, we extend the study of fairness of exposure to the top-k setting and also assess FELIX in this setting. We find that FELIX can significantly reduce the number of rankings with unknown exposure distribution without a drop in user utility or fairness compared to existing fair ranking methods, both for full-length and top-k rankings. This is an important first step in developing fair ranking methods for cases where we have incomplete knowledge about the user's behaviour.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 May 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2022Uncertainty Quantification for Fairness in Two-Stage Recommender Systemscited by 10
- 2023Modeling Recommender Ecosystems: Research Challenges at the Intersection of Mechanism Design, Reinforcement Learning and Generative Modelscited by 7
- 2023Content Prompting: Modeling Content Provider Dynamics to Improve User Welfare in Recommender Ecosystemscited by 5
- 2024Measuring Bias in a Ranked List using Term-based Representationscited by 4
- 2025What's in a Query: Polarity-Aware Distribution-Based Fair Rankingcited by 1
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Organ Allocationcited by 1
- 2023ExCalibR: Expected Calibration of Recommendationscited by 0
- 2023Learning to Re-rank with Constrained Meta-Optimal Transportcited by 0
- 2025On the Reliability of Sampling Strategies in Offline Recommender Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Localization Boosting for Growth Markets: Mitigating Cross-Locale Behavioral Bias in Learning-to-Rankcited by 0
- 2026Localization Boosting for Growth Markets: Mitigating Cross-Locale Behavioral Bias in Learning-to-Rank11 May 2026
- 2025On the Reliability of Sampling Strategies in Offline Recommender Evaluation7 Aug 2025
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Organ Allocation29 Mar 2025
- 2025What's in a Query: Polarity-Aware Distribution-Based Fair Ranking17 Feb 2025
- 2024Measuring Bias in a Ranked List using Term-based Representations9 Mar 2024
- 2023Modeling Recommender Ecosystems: Research Challenges at the Intersection of Mechanism Design, Reinforcement Learning and Generative Models8 Sep 2023
- 2023Content Prompting: Modeling Content Provider Dynamics to Improve User Welfare in Recommender Ecosystems2 Sep 2023
- 2023Learning to Re-rank with Constrained Meta-Optimal Transport29 Apr 2023
- 2023ExCalibR: Expected Calibration of Recommendations24 Apr 2023
- 2022Uncertainty Quantification for Fairness in Two-Stage Recommender Systems30 May 2022