mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Properties of Group Fairness Metrics for Rankings

arXiv 2212.14351 ↗First posted 29 Dec 2022cs.LG cs.CY cs.IRcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, several metrics have been developed for evaluating group fairness of rankings. Given that these metrics were developed with different application contexts and ranking algorithms in mind, it is not straightforward which metric to choose for a given scenario. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive comparative analysis of existing group fairness metrics developed in the context of fair ranking. By virtue of their diverse application contexts, we argue that such a comparative analysis is not straightforward. Hence, we take an axiomatic approach whereby we design a set of thirteen properties for group fairness metrics that consider different ranking settings. A metric can then be selected depending on whether it satisfies all or a subset of these properties. We apply these properties on eleven existing group fairness metrics, and through both empirical and theoretical results we demonstrate that most of these metrics only satisfy a small subset of the proposed properties. These findings highlight limitations of existing metrics, and provide insights into how to evaluate and interpret different fairness metrics in practical deployment. The proposed properties can also assist practitioners in selecting appropriate metrics for evaluating fairness in a specific application.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Dec 2022.

Builds on

21 of 58 references.

References · 21

  1. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  2. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 190
  3. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 138
  4. 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
  5. 2018Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankingscited by 124
  6. 2013A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measurescited by 119
  7. 2022A Prompt Array Keeps the Bias Away: Debiasing Vision-Language Models with Adversarial Learningcited by 104
  8. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  9. 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
  10. 2019Policy Learning for Fairness in Rankingcited by 74
  11. 2020Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rankcited by 68
  12. 2021Fairness in Rankings and Recommendations: An Overviewcited by 62
9 more
  1. 2019Pairwise Fairness for Ranking and Regressioncited by 58
  2. 2020Evaluating Stochastic Rankings with Expected Exposurecited by 53
  3. 2020Interventions for Ranking in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 27
  4. 2019Quantifying the Impact of User Attention on Fair Group Representation in Ranked Listscited by 24
  5. 2021When Fair Ranking Meets Uncertain Inferencecited by 22
  6. 2018On Discrimination Discovery and Removal in Ranked Data using Causal Graphcited by 16
  7. 2020Assessing Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results Using Ranking Fairness Metricscited by 11
  8. 2018An Axiomatic Analysis of Diversity Evaluation Metrics: Introducing the Rank-Biased Utility Metriccited by 6
  9. 2021Evaluating Fairness in Argument Retrievalcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.