As models grow more complex and societal demands for transparency increase with emerging regulations, explainability has become an increasingly important research area. However, despite its recognized relevance, progress in explainability research in information retrieval (IR) has been slower than in related fields. This full day workshop aims to advance research in explainable IR by providing a more in-depth platform to reflect on recent developments and facilitate discussions across both new and persistent challenges. Building upon the first edition of the workshop, which was a great success in bringing together multiple perspectives on explainability in IR, this second edition will focus on synthesizing a common agenda for the research community. Through a set of interactive activities, the workshop will bring together a diverse group of researchers to build a shared understanding of key tasks and challenges, and to help shape future directions for explainable IR research. The workshop will have as concrete outcomes a roadmap document and a special issue proposal for a journal issue on explainability in IR.

As models grow more complex and societal demands for transparency increase with emerging regulations, explainability has become an even more important research area. However, despite its recognized relevance, explainability research in IR has seen slower progress than in related fields. This full day workshop aims to advance research in explainable information retrieval by providing a more in-depth platform to reflect on recent developments and facilitate discussions to address new and persistent challenges. Our goal is to bring together a diverse group of researchers to build a shared understanding of key tasks and challenges that will lay the foundation for the future of explainable IR research.

While SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) and other feature attribution methods are commonly employed to explain model predictions, their application within information retrieval (IR), particularly for complex outputs such as ranked lists, remains limited. Existing attribution methods typically provide pointwise explanations, focusing on why a single document received a high-ranking score, rather than considering the relationships between documents in a ranked list. We present three key contributions to address this gap. First, we rigorously define listwise feature attribution for ranking models. Secondly, we introduce RankingSHAP, extending the popular SHAP framework to accommodate listwise ranking attribution, addressing a significant methodological gap in the field. Third, we propose two novel evaluation paradigms for assessing the faithfulness of attributions in learning-to-rank models, measuring the correctness and completeness of the explanation with respect to different aspects. Through experiments on standard learning-to-rank datasets, we demonstrate RankingSHAP's practical application while identifying the constraints of selection-based explanations. We further employ a simulated study with an interpretable model to showcase how listwise ranking attributions can be used to examine model decisions and conduct a qualitative evaluation of explanations. Due to the contrastive nature of the ranking task, our understanding of ranking model decisions can substantially benefit from feature attribution explanations like RankingSHAP.

Societal biases that are contained in retrieved documents have received increased interest. Such biases, which are often prevalent in the training data and learned by the model, can cause societal harms, by misrepresenting certain groups, and by enforcing stereotypes. Mitigating such biases demands algorithms that balance the trade-off between maximized utility for the user with fairness objectives, which incentivize unbiased rankings. Prior work on bias mitigation often assumes that ranking scores, which correspond to the utility that a document holds for a user, can be accurately determined. In reality, there is always a degree of uncertainty in the estimate of expected document utility. This uncertainty can be approximated by viewing ranking models through a Bayesian perspective, where the standard deterministic score becomes a distribution.

Fairness of exposure is a commonly used notion of fairness for ranking systems. It is based on the idea that all items or item groups should get exposure proportional to the merit of the item or the collective merit of the items in the group. Often, stochastic ranking policies are used to ensure fairness of exposure. Previous work unrealistically assumes that we can reliably estimate the expected exposure for all items in each ranking produced by the stochastic policy. In this work, we discuss how to approach fairness of exposure in cases where the policy contains rankings of which, due to inter-item dependencies, we cannot reliably estimate the exposure distribution. In such cases, we cannot determine whether the policy can be considered fair. % Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we define a method called \method for finding stochastic policies that avoid showing rankings with unknown exposure distribution to the user without having to compromise user utility or item fairness. Second, we extend the study of fairness of exposure to the top-k setting and also assess \method in this setting. We find that \method can significantly reduce the number of rankings with unknown exposure distribution without a drop in user utility or fairness compared to existing fair ranking methods, both for full-length and top-k rankings. This is an important first step in developing fair ranking methods for cases where we have incomplete knowledge about the user's behaviour.

Traditional ranking systems are expected to sort items in the order of their relevance and thereby maximize their utility. In fair ranking, utility is complemented with fairness as an optimization goal. Recent work on fair ranking focuses on developing algorithms to optimize for fairness, given position-based exposure. In contrast, we identify the potential of outliers in a ranking to influence exposure and thereby negatively impact fairness. An outlier in a list of items can alter the examination probabilities, which can lead to different distributions of attention, compared to position-based exposure. We formalize outlierness in a ranking, show that outliers are present in realistic datasets, and present the results of an eye-tracking study, showing that users scanning order and the exposure of items are influenced by the presence of outliers. We then introduce OMIT, a method for fair ranking in the presence of outliers. Given an outlier detection method, OMIT improves fair allocation of exposure by suppressing outliers in the top-k ranking. Using an academic search dataset, we show that outlierness optimization leads to a fairer policy that displays fewer outliers in the top-k, while maintaining a reasonable trade-off between fairness and utility.