Evaluation Metrics for Measuring Bias in Search Engine Results
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Search engines decide what we see for a given search query. Since many people are exposed to information through search engines, it is fair to expect that search engines are neutral. However, search engine results do not necessarily cover all the viewpoints of a search query topic, and they can be biased towards a specific view since search engine results are returned based on relevance, which is calculated using many features and sophisticated algorithms where search neutrality is not necessarily the focal point. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the search engine results with respect to bias. In this work we propose novel web search bias evaluation measures which take into account the rank and relevance. We also propose a framework to evaluate web search bias using the proposed measures and test our framework on two popular search engines based on 57 controversial query topics such as abortion, medical marijuana, and gay marriage. We measure the stance bias (in support or against), as well as the ideological bias (conservative or liberal). We observe that the stance does not necessarily correlate with the ideological leaning, e.g. a positive stance on abortion indicates a liberal leaning but a positive stance on Cuba embargo indicates a conservative leaning. Our experiments show that neither of the search engines suffers from stance bias. However, both search engines suffer from ideological bias, both favouring one ideological leaning to the other, which is more significant from the perspective of polarisation in our society.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 6.
12 papers.
- 2024Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2024Measuring and Addressing Indexical Bias in Information Retrievalcited by 6
- 2025Perspectives in Play: A Multi-Perspective Approach for More Inclusive NLP Systemscited by 4
- 2025Source Coverage and Citation Bias in LLM-based vs. Traditional Search Enginescited by 4
- 2025Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labelscited by 3
- 2025CORG: Generating Answers from Complex, Interrelated Contextscited by 3
- 2025Revealing Political Bias in LLMs through Structured Multi-Agent Debatecited by 3
- 2023Explaining Search Result Stances to Opinionated Peoplecited by 1
- 2024Multi-Perspective Stance Detectioncited by 1
- 2025Social and Political Framing in Search Engine Resultscited by 1
- 2023A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach for Interactive Search with Sentence-level Feedbackcited by 0
- 2024Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effectscited by 0
- 2025Source Coverage and Citation Bias in LLM-based vs. Traditional Search Engines10 Dec 2025
- 2025Social and Political Framing in Search Engine Results17 Jul 2025
- 2025Perspectives in Play: A Multi-Perspective Approach for More Inclusive NLP Systems25 Jun 2025
- 2025Revealing Political Bias in LLMs through Structured Multi-Agent Debate13 Jun 2025
- 2025CORG: Generating Answers from Complex, Interrelated Contexts25 Apr 2025
- 2025Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labels1 Mar 2025
- 2024Multi-Perspective Stance Detection13 Nov 2024
- 2024Measuring and Addressing Indexical Bias in Information Retrieval6 Jun 2024
- 2024Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models15 Mar 2024
- 2024Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effects20 Jan 2024
- 2023A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach for Interactive Search with Sentence-level Feedback3 Oct 2023
- 2023Explaining Search Result Stances to Opinionated People15 Sep 2023