Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Information access systems, such as search and recommender systems, often use ranked lists to present results believed to be relevant to the user's information need. Evaluating these lists for their fairness along with other traditional metrics provides a more complete understanding of an information access system's behavior beyond accuracy or utility constructs. To measure the (un)fairness of rankings, particularly with respect to the protected group(s) of producers or providers, several metrics have been proposed in the last several years. However, an empirical and comparative analyses of these metrics showing the applicability to specific scenario or real data, conceptual similarities, and differences is still lacking.
Raj et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: