Are All Genders Equal in the Eyes of Algorithms? -- Analysing Search and Retrieval Algorithms for Algorithmic Gender Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05680v1
• Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 15:33:01 GMT
• Title: Are All Genders Equal in the Eyes of Algorithms? -- Analysing Search and Retrieval Algorithms for Algorithmic Gender Fairness
• Authors: Stefanie Urchs, Veronika Thurner, Matthias Aßenmacher, Ludwig Bothmann, Christian Heumann, Stephanie Thiemichen,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces and applies a bias-preserving definition of algorithmic gender fairness.<n>We analyse gender differences in metadata completeness, publication retrieval in academic databases, and visibility in Google search results.<n>Male professors are associated with a greater number of search results and more aligned publication records, while female professors display higher variability in digital visibility.
• Score: 0.1979158763744267
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic systems such as search engines and information retrieval platforms significantly influence academic visibility and the dissemination of knowledge. Despite assumptions of neutrality, these systems can reproduce or reinforce societal biases, including those related to gender. This paper introduces and applies a bias-preserving definition of algorithmic gender fairness, which assesses whether algorithmic outputs reflect real-world gender distributions without introducing or amplifying disparities. Using a heterogeneous dataset of academic profiles from German universities and universities of applied sciences, we analyse gender differences in metadata completeness, publication retrieval in academic databases, and visibility in Google search results. While we observe no overt algorithmic discrimination, our findings reveal subtle but consistent imbalances: male professors are associated with a greater number of search results and more aligned publication records, while female professors display higher variability in digital visibility. These patterns reflect the interplay between platform algorithms, institutional curation, and individual self-presentation. Our study highlights the need for fairness evaluations that account for both technical performance and representational equality in digital systems.

Related papers

• On the "Illusion" of Gender Bias in Face Recognition: Explaining the Fairness Issue Through Non-demographic Attributes [7.602456562464879]
  Face recognition systems exhibit significant accuracy differences based on the user's gender.<n>We propose a toolchain to effectively decorrelate and aggregate facial attributes to enable a less-biased gender analysis.<n>Experiments show that the gender gap vanishes when images of male and female subjects share specific attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T10:21:19Z)
• Finding the white male: The prevalence and consequences of algorithmic gender and race bias in political Google searches [0.0]
  This article proposes and tests a framework of algorithmic representation of minoritized groups in a series of four studies. First, two algorithm audits of political image searches delineate how search engines reflect and uphold structural inequalities by under- and misrepresenting women and non-white politicians. Second, two online experiments show that these biases in algorithmic representation in turn distort perceptions of the political reality and actively reinforce a white and masculinized view of politics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T05:57:03Z)
• VisoGender: A dataset for benchmarking gender bias in image-text pronoun resolution [80.57383975987676]
  VisoGender is a novel dataset for benchmarking gender bias in vision-language models. We focus on occupation-related biases within a hegemonic system of binary gender, inspired by Winograd and Winogender schemas. We benchmark several state-of-the-art vision-language models and find that they demonstrate bias in resolving binary gender in complex scenes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T17:59:51Z)
• Assessing Gender Bias in Predictive Algorithms using eXplainable AI [1.9798034349981162]
  Predictive algorithms have a powerful potential to offer benefits in areas as varied as medicine or education. They can inherit the bias and prejudices present in humans. The outcomes can systematically repeat errors that create unfair results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-19T07:47:45Z)
• Are Commercial Face Detection Models as Biased as Academic Models? [64.71318433419636]
  We compare academic and commercial face detection systems, specifically examining robustness to noise. We find that state-of-the-art academic face detection models exhibit demographic disparities in their noise robustness. We conclude that commercial models are always as biased or more biased than an academic model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-25T02:21:42Z)
• Anatomizing Bias in Facial Analysis [86.79402670904338]
  Existing facial analysis systems have been shown to yield biased results against certain demographic subgroups. It has become imperative to ensure that these systems do not discriminate based on gender, identity, or skin tone of individuals. This has led to research in the identification and mitigation of bias in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T09:51:13Z)
• Beyond Algorithmic Bias: A Socio-Computational Interrogation of the Google Search by Image Algorithm [0.799536002595393]
  We audit the algorithm by presenting it with more than 40 thousands faces of all ages and more than four races. We find that the algorithm reproduces white male patriarchal structures, often simplifying, stereotyping and discriminating females and non-white individuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-26T21:40:43Z)
• Gender Stereotype Reinforcement: Measuring the Gender Bias Conveyed by Ranking Algorithms [68.85295025020942]
  We propose the Gender Stereotype Reinforcement (GSR) measure, which quantifies the tendency of a Search Engines to support gender stereotypes. GSR is the first specifically tailored measure for Information Retrieval, capable of quantifying representational harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-02T20:45:04Z)
• Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms [54.19499274513654]
  We develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic transects'' of matched sample images. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T17:10:34Z)
• Mitigating Gender Bias in Machine Learning Data Sets [5.075506385456811]
  Gender bias has been identified in the context of employment advertising and recruitment tools. This paper proposes a framework for the identification of gender bias in training data for machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T12:06:02Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Gender Bias Classification [67.65551687580552]
  Machine learning models can inadvertently learn socially undesirable patterns when training on gender biased text. We propose a general framework that decomposes gender bias in text along several pragmatic and semantic dimensions. Using this fine-grained framework, we automatically annotate eight large scale datasets with gender information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T21:23:20Z)

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.