Offline Evaluation Measures of Fairness in Recommender Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25032v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 22:28:24 GMT
• Title: Offline Evaluation Measures of Fairness in Recommender Systems
• Abstract summary: This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures.<n> Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability.<n>Finally, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios.
• Score: 0.6345523830122167
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures' limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures' limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.

Related papers

• When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning [0.0]
  We investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models.<n>Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias.<n>These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T14:07:37Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation [12.55408229639344]
  We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence.<n>Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T20:36:22Z)
• Pessimistic Evaluation [58.736490198613154]
  We argue that evaluating information access systems assumes utilitarian values not aligned with traditions of information access based on equal access. We advocate for pessimistic evaluation of information access systems focusing on worst case utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:40:09Z)
• Ranking evaluation metrics from a group-theoretic perspective [5.333192842860574]
  We show instances resulting in inconsistent evaluations, sources of potential mistrust in commonly used metrics. Our analysis sheds light on ranking evaluation metrics, highlighting that inconsistent evaluations should not be seen as a source of mistrust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T09:06:58Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.