Examining bias perpetuation in academic search engines: an algorithm audit of Google and Semantic Scholar

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09969v3
• Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 22:37:51 GMT
• Title: Examining bias perpetuation in academic search engines: an algorithm audit of Google and Semantic Scholar
• Authors: Celina Kacperski, Mona Bielig, Mykola Makhortykh, Maryna Sydorova, Roberto Ulloa,
• Abstract summary: This study examines whether confirmation biased queries prompted into Google Scholar will yield results aligned with a query's bias. Technology-related queries displaying more significant disparities. Academic search results that perpetuate confirmation bias have strong implications for both researchers and citizens searching for evidence.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Researchers rely on academic Web search engines to find scientific sources, but search engine mechanisms may selectively present content that aligns with biases embedded in queries. This study examines whether confirmation biased queries prompted into Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar will yield results aligned with a query's bias. Six queries (topics across health and technology domains such as vaccines, Internet use) were analyzed for disparities in search results. We confirm that biased queries (targeting benefits or risks) affect search results in line with bias, with technology-related queries displaying more significant disparities. Overall, Semantic Scholar exhibited fewer disparities than Google Scholar. Topics rated as more polarizing did not consistently show more disparate results. Academic search results that perpetuate confirmation bias have strong implications for both researchers and citizens searching for evidence. More research is needed to explore how scientific inquiry and academic search engines interact.

Related papers

• Search results diversification in competitive search [11.398498369228571]
  We study ranking functions that integrate a results-diversification aspect. We show that the competitive search setting with diversity-based ranking has an equilibrium.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T21:13:45Z)
• Investigating Bias in Political Search Query Suggestions by Relative Comparison with LLMs [1.5356574175312299]
  bias in search query suggestions can lead to exposure to biased search results and can impact opinion formation. We use a multi-step approach to identify and quantify bias in English search query suggestions. We apply our approach to the U.S. political news domain and compare bias in Google and Bing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:40:38Z)
• Auditing Google's Search Algorithm: Measuring News Diversity Across Brazil, the UK, and the US [0.0]
  This study examines the influence of Google's search algorithm on news diversity by analyzing search results in Brazil, the UK, and the US. It explores how Google's system preferentially favors a limited number of news outlets. Findings indicate a slight leftward bias in search outcomes and a preference for popular, often national outlets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T11:49:16Z)
• Taxonomy-guided Semantic Indexing for Academic Paper Search [51.07749719327668]
  TaxoIndex is a semantic index framework for academic paper search. It organizes key concepts from papers as a semantic index guided by an academic taxonomy. It can be flexibly employed to enhance existing dense retrievers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T00:00:17Z)
• SurveyAgent: A Conversational System for Personalized and Efficient Research Survey [50.04283471107001]
  This paper introduces SurveyAgent, a novel conversational system designed to provide personalized and efficient research survey assistance to researchers. SurveyAgent integrates three key modules: Knowledge Management for organizing papers, Recommendation for discovering relevant literature, and Query Answering for engaging with content on a deeper level. Our evaluation demonstrates SurveyAgent's effectiveness in streamlining research activities, showcasing its capability to facilitate how researchers interact with scientific literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T15:01:51Z)
• Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effects [0.0]
  We investigate whether different levels of bias metrics and search results presentation can affect the stance diversity consumption and search behavior of opinionated users. Our results show that exposing participants to (counter-attitudinally) biased search results increases their consumption of attitude-opposing content. We also found that bias was associated with a trend toward overall fewer interactions within the search page.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T10:28:25Z)
• Algorithmic amplification of biases on Google Search [0.6167267484484484]
  This paper investigates how individuals' preexisting attitudes influence the modern information-seeking process. Individuals with opposing attitudes on abortion receive different search results. Google Search engine reinforces preexisting beliefs in search results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:24:57Z)
• User Attitudes to Content Moderation in Web Search [49.1574468325115]
  We examine the levels of support for different moderation practices applied to potentially misleading and/or potentially offensive content in web search. We find that the most supported practice is informing users about potentially misleading or offensive content, and the least supported one is the complete removal of search results. More conservative users and users with lower levels of trust in web search results are more likely to be against content moderation in web search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T10:57:15Z)
• Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines [70.59477647085387]
  Generative search engines directly generate responses to user queries, along with in-line citations. We conduct human evaluation to audit four popular generative search engines. We find that responses from existing generative search engines are fluent and appear informative, but frequently contain unsupported statements and inaccurate citations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T17:56:12Z)
• Exposing Query Identification for Search Transparency [69.06545074617685]
  We explore the feasibility of approximate exposing query identification (EQI) as a retrieval task by reversing the role of queries and documents in two classes of search systems. We derive an evaluation metric to measure the quality of a ranking of exposing queries, as well as conducting an empirical analysis focusing on various practical aspects of approximate EQI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-14T20:19:27Z)
• The Matter of Chance: Auditing Web Search Results Related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections Across Six Search Engines [68.8204255655161]
  We look at the text search results for "us elections", "donald trump", "joe biden" and "bernie sanders" queries on Google, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, and Yandex. Our findings indicate substantial differences in the search results between search engines and multiple discrepancies within the results generated for different agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T11:18:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.