mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Fairness in Image Search: A Study of Occupational Stereotyping in Image Retrieval and its Debiasing

arXiv 2305.03881 ↗First posted 6 May 2023cs.IR cs.CL cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-modal search engines have experienced significant growth and widespread use in recent years, making them the second most common internet use. While search engine systems offer a range of services, the image search field has recently become a focal point in the information retrieval community, as the adage goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Although popular search engines like Google excel at image search accuracy and agility, there is an ongoing debate over whether their search results can be biased in terms of gender, language, demographics, socio-cultural aspects, and stereotypes. This potential for bias can have a significant impact on individuals' perceptions and influence their perspectives. In this paper, we present our study on bias and fairness in web search, with a focus on keyword-based image search. We first discuss several kinds of biases that exist in search systems and why it is important to mitigate them. We narrow down our study to assessing and mitigating occupational stereotypes in image search, which is a prevalent fairness issue in image retrieval. For the assessment of stereotypes, we take gender as an indicator. We explore various open-source and proprietary APIs for gender identification from images. With these, we examine the extent of gender bias in top-tanked image search results obtained for several occupational keywords. To mitigate the bias, we then propose a fairness-aware re-ranking algorithm that optimizes (a) relevance of the search result with the keyword and (b) fairness w.r.t genders identified. We experiment on 100 top-ranked images obtained for 10 occupational keywords and consider random re-ranking and re-ranking based on relevance as baselines. Our experimental results show that the fairness-aware re-ranking algorithm produces rankings with better fairness scores and competitive relevance scores than the baselines.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2023.

Builds on

14 of 62 references.

References · 14

  1. 2017MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applicationscited by 3,845
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2019Expressive Body Capture: 3D Hands, Face, and Body from a Single Imagecited by 1,612
  4. 2019VisualBERT: A Simple and Performant Baseline for Vision and Languagecited by 1,296
  5. 2016Joint Face Detection and Alignment using Multi-task Cascaded Convolutional Networkscited by 903
  6. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 659
  7. 2017Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencodercited by 429
  8. 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 194
  9. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 138
  10. 2017Quantifying Search Bias: Investigating Sources of Bias for Political Searches in Social Mediacited by 18
  11. 2021RLIRank: Learning to Rank with Reinforcement Learning for Dynamic Searchcited by 7
  12. 2020Overview of the TREC 2019 Fair Ranking Trackcited by 4
2 more
  1. 2021De-Biased Modelling of Search Click Behavior with Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
  2. 2020University of Washington at TREC 2020 Fairness Ranking Trackcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.