Paper detail

A Versatile Framework for Evaluating Ranked Lists in terms of Group Fairness and Relevance

We present a simple and versatile framework for evaluating ranked lists in terms of group fairness and relevance, where the groups (i.e., possible attribute values) can be either nominal or ordinal in nature. First, we demonstrate that, if the attribute set is binary, our framework can easily quantify the overall polarity of each ranked list. Second, by utilising an existing diversified search test collection and treating each intent as an attribute value, we demonstrate that our framework can handle soft group membership, and that our group fairness measures are highly correlated with both adhoc IR and diversified IR measures under this setting. Third, we demonstrate how our framework can quantify intersectional group fairness based on multiple attribute sets. We also show that the similarity function for comparing the achieved and target distributions over the attribute values should be chosen carefully.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.