Fairness monitoring is critical for detecting algorithmic bias, as mandated by the EU AI Act. Since such monitoring requires sensitive user data (e.g., ethnicity), the AI Act permits its processing only with strict privacy measures, such as multi-party computation (MPC), in compliance with the GDPR. However, the effectiveness of such secure monitoring protocols ultimately depends on people’s willingness to share their data. Little is known about how different MPC protocol designs shape user acceptance. To address this, we conducted an online survey with 833 participants in Europe, examining user acceptance of various MPC protocol designs for fairness monitoring. Findings suggest that users prioritized risk-related attributes (e.g., privacy protection mechanism) in direct evaluation but benefit-related attributes (e.g., fairness objective) in simulated choices, with acceptance shaped by their fairness and privacy orientations. We derive implications for deploying and communicating privacy-preserving protocols in ways that foster informed consent and align with user expectations.

Obtaining meaningful and informed consent from users is essential for ensuring autonomy and control over one’s data. Notice and consent, the standard for collecting consent, has been criticized. While other individualized solutions have been proposed, this paper argues that a collective approach to consent is worth exploring. First, individual consent is not always feasible to collect for all data collection scenarios. Second, harms resulting from data processing are often communal in nature, given the interconnected nature of some data. Finally, ensuring truly informed consent for every individual has proven impractical.

• Fair exposure ≠ fair outcomes. Visibility in rankings does not guarantee equitable shortlisting in online recruitment. • Human and task factors matter. Recruiter behavior, task design, and candidate cues influence fairness beyond algorithms, as we show in user studies. • Design implications. Our findings translate into practical implications for model evaluations, interfaces, and recruiter practices to support equity. Personnel recruitment is increasingly mediated by Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), which rank candidates for job positions, making them a central decision-support tool in modern Human Resources (HR) processes. Often framed as an information retrieval (IR) problem, the ranking of candidates in ATS is typically driven by relevance to the job position, with algorithms sorting applicants according to a set of predefined criteria. In recent years, fairness-aware ranking methods have emerged to mitigate the risk of indirect discrimination, where the ordering of candidates may inadvertently favor one demographic group over another. These approaches are inspired by browsing models developed for web search and aim to balance candidate exposure based on protected characteristics. However, ATS in recruitment introduce unique challenges due to their high-stakes nature and the decision-making context in which they operate. In this paper, we present a series of user studies that explore the disconnect between fair exposure and fair outcomes in candidate shortlisting. We focus on how factors such as task design (e.g., how recruiters interact with candidate lists), individual representations of candidates (e.g., national origin cues), and ranking order influence both position bias and demographic balance. Our findings show that while demographic balance may be achieved in terms of ranking visibility, this does not necessarily translate to fair outcomes in terms of who gets shortlisted. Through a crowdsourced experiment and in-depth interviews with recruiters, we identify key task-level, individual, and ranking factors that mediate these effects. We conclude that fairness in ATS rankings is contingent not only on algorithmic design but also on the shortlisting tasks they support, as well as the interfaces, strategies, and assumptions that recruiters use when interacting with candidate lists. Based on these insights, we provide implications for the design of algorithms, interfaces, and recruitment processes that support fairer and more equitable recruitment outcomes.

Machine learning-driven rankings, where individuals (or items) are ranked in response to a query, mediate search exposure or attention in a variety of safety-critical settings. Thus, it is important to ensure that such rankings are fair. Under the goal of equal opportunity, attention allocated to an individual on a ranking interface should be proportional to their relevance across search queries. In this work, we examine amortized fair ranking -- where relevance and attention are cumulated over a sequence of user queries to make fair ranking more feasible in practice. Unlike prior methods that operate on expected amortized attention for each individual, we define new divergence-based measures for attention distribution-based fairness in ranking (DistFaiR), characterizing unfairness as the divergence between the distribution of attention and relevance corresponding to an individual over time. This allows us to propose new definitions of unfairness, which are more reliable at test time. Second, we prove that group fairness is upper-bounded by individual fairness under this definition for a useful class of divergence measures, and experimentally show that maximizing individual fairness through an integer linear programming-based optimization is often beneficial to group fairness. Lastly, we find that prior research in amortized fair ranking ignores critical information about queries, potentially leading to a fairwashing risk in practice by making rankings appear more fair than they actually are.

Employers are adopting algorithmic hiring technology throughout the recruitment pipeline. Algorithmic fairness is especially applicable in this domain due to its high stakes and structural inequalities. Unfortunately, most work in this space provides partial treatment, often constrained by two competing narratives, optimistically focused on replacing biased recruiter decisions or pessimistically pointing to the automation of discrimination. Whether, and more importantly what types of , algorithmic hiring can be less biased and more beneficial to society than low-tech alternatives currently remains unanswered, to the detriment of trustworthiness. This multidisciplinary survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness. Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.

Data collection purposes and their descriptions are presented on almost all privacy notices under the GDPR, yet there is a lack of research focusing on how effective they are at informing users about data practices. We fill this gap by investigating users’ perceptions of data collection purposes and their descriptions, a crucial aspect of informed consent. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with European users to investigate user perceptions of six common purposes (Strictly Necessary, Statistics and Analytics, Performance and Functionality, Marketing and Advertising, Personalized Advertising, and Personalized Content) and identified elements of an effective purpose name and description.

In today's age of digital technology, ethical concerns regarding computing systems are increasing. While the focus of such concerns currently is on requirements for software, this article spotlights the hardware domain, specifically microchips. For example, the opaqueness of modern microchips raises security issues, as malicious actors can manipulate them, jeopardizing system integrity. As a consequence, governments invest substantially to facilitate a secure microchip supply chain. To combat the opaqueness of hardware, this article introduces the concept of Explainable Hardware (XHW). Inspired by and building on previous work on Explainable AI (XAI) and explainable software systems, we develop a framework for achieving XHW comprising relevant stakeholders, requirements they might have concerning hardware, and possible explainability approaches to meet these requirements. Through an exploratory survey among 18 hardware experts, we showcase applications of the framework and discover potential research gaps. Our work lays the foundation for future work and structured debates on XHW.

This paper presents a generative approach to interdisciplinary collaboration based on generic epistemology. Informed by the work of philosopher Anne-Françoise Schmid, we introduce the concept of the integrative object as a means to reorient interdisciplinary collaboration toward the requirements of the object of research itself, rather than via the requirements of particular disciplinary languages, methods, or operative logics. We show how such an approach is useful for research into sociotechnical phenomena that exceed the boundaries of discrete disciplines and their convergence. We introduce digital well-being as a case study, drawing on the authors’ own interdisciplinary collaborative experiences in this area as its empirical matter. From this, and in order to aid future research into similarly complex sociotechnical objects, we then provide practical tools to help those in the HCI community prepare and conduct interdisciplinary research in a similarly generative, non-dogmatic, and non-hierarchical manner.

Legitimate interest is one of the six grounds for processing data under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The flexibility and ambiguity of the term "legitimate interests" can be problematic; coupled with the lack of enforcement from legal authorities and different interpretations from the various data protection authorities, legitimate interests can be taken advantage of as a loophole to collect more user data.

Online platforms mediate access to opportunity: relevance-based rankings create and constrain options by allocating exposure to job openings and job candidates in hiring platforms, or sellers in a marketplace. In order to do so responsibly, these socially consequential systems employ various fairness measures and interventions, many of which seek to allocate exposure based on worthiness. Because these constructs are typically not directly observable, platforms must instead resort to using proxy scores such as relevance and infer them from behavioral signals such as searcher clicks. Yet, it remains an open question whether relevance fulfills its role as %a deservedness score such a worthiness score in high-stakes fair rankings.

Fairness and equity have become central to ranking problems in information access systems, such as search engines, recommender systems, or marketplaces. To date, several types of fair ranking measures have been proposed, including diversity, exposure, and pairwise fairness measures. Out of those, pairwise fairness is a family of metrics whose normative grounding has not been clearly explicated, leading to uncertainty with respect to the construct that is being measured and how it relates to stakeholders' desiderata.

The psychological costs of the attention economy are often considered through the binary of harmful design and healthy use, with digital well-being chiefly characterised as a matter of personal responsibility. This article adopts an interdisciplinary approach to highlight the empirical, ideological, and political limits of embedding this individualised perspective in computational discourses and designs of digital well-being measurement. We will reveal well-being to be a culturally specific and environmentally conditioned concept and will problematize user engagement as a universal proxy for well-being. Instead, the contributing factors of user well-being will be located in environing social, cultural, and political conditions far beyond the control of individual users alone. In doing so, we hope to reinvigorate the issue of digital well-being measurement as a nexus point of political concern, through which multiple disciplines can study experiences of digital ill as symptomatic of wider social inequalities and (capitalist) relations of power.

Search systems control the exposure of ranked content to searchers. In many cases, creators value not only the exposure of their content but, moreover, an understanding of the specific searches where the content is surfaced. The problem of identifying which queries expose a given piece of content in the ranked results is an important and relatively underexplored search transparency challenge. Exposing queries are useful for quantifying various issues of search bias, privacy, data protection, security, and search engine optimization. Exact identification of exposing queries in a given system is computationally expensive, especially in dynamic contexts such as web search. 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: dense dual-encoder models and traditional BM25. We then improve upon this approach through metric learning over the retrieval embedding space. We further derive an evaluation metric to measure the quality of a ranking of exposing queries, as well as conducting an empirical analysis of various practical aspects of approximate EQI. Overall, our work contributes a novel conception of transparency in search systems and computational means of achieving it.

There is increasing attention to evaluating the fairness of search system ranking decisions. These metrics often consider the membership of items to particular groups, often identified using protected attributes such as gender or ethnicity. To date, these metrics typically assume the availability and completeness of protected attribute labels of items. However, the protected attributes of individuals are rarely present, limiting the application of fair ranking metrics in large scale systems. In order to address this problem, we propose a sampling strategy and estimation technique for four fair ranking metrics. We formulate a robust and unbiased estimator which can operate even with very limited number of labeled items. We evaluate our approach using both simulated and real world data. Our experimental results demonstrate that our method can estimate this family of fair ranking metrics and provides a robust, reliable alternative to exhaustive or random data annotation.

We introduce the concept of expected exposure as the average attention ranked items receive from users over repeated samples of the same query. Furthermore, we advocate for the adoption of the principle of equal expected exposure: given a fixed information need, no item should receive more or less expected exposure than any other item of the same relevance grade. We argue that this principle is desirable for many retrieval objectives and scenarios, including topical diversity and fair ranking. %Leveraging user models from existing retrieval metrics, we propose a general evaluation methodology based on expected exposure and draw connections to related metrics in information retrieval evaluation. Importantly, this methodology relaxes classic information retrieval assumptions, allowing a system, in response to a query, to produce a distribution over rankings instead of a single fixed ranking. We study the behavior of the expected exposure metric and stochastic rankers across a variety of information access conditions, including ad hoc retrieval and recommendation. %We believe that measuring and optimizing expected exposure metrics using randomization opens a new area for retrieval algorithm development and progress.

Article 5(1)(c) of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires that "personal data shall be [...] adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (`data minimisation')". To date, the legal and computational definitions of 'purpose limitation' and 'data minimization' remain largely unclear. In particular, the interpretation of these principles is an open issue for information access systems that optimize for user experience through personalization and do not strictly require personal data collection for the delivery of basic service.

Online donation platforms help equalize access to opportunity and funding in cases where inequalities exist. In the context of public school education in the United States, for instance, financial inequalities have been shown to be reflected in the educational system, since schools are primarily funded through local property taxes. In response, private charitable donation platforms such as DonorsChoose.org have emerged seeking to alleviate systemic inequalities. Yet, the question remains of how effective these platforms are in redressing existing funding inequalities across school districts. Our analysis of donation data from DonorsChoose shows that such platforms may in fact be ineffective in mitigating existing inequalities or may even exacerbate them. In this paper, we explore how online educational charities could direct more funding towards more impoverished schools without compromising their donors' freedom of choice with respect to donation targets. Seeking to answer this question, we draw on the line of work on choice architectures in behavioral economics and pose a novel research question on the impact of interface design on equity in socio-technical systems. Through controlled experiments, we demonstrate how simple interface design interventions - such as modifying default rankings or displaying additional information about schools - might lead to changes in donation distributions helping platforms direct more funding towards schools in need. Going beyond online educational charities, we hope that our work will bring attention to the role of interface design nudges in the social requirements of online altruism.

Ride hailing platforms, such as Uber, Lyft, Ola or DiDi, have traditionally focused on the satisfaction of the passengers, or on boosting successful business transactions. However, recent studies provide a multitude of reasons to worry about the drivers in the ride hailing ecosystem. The concerns range from bad working conditions and worker manipulation to discrimination against minorities. With the sharing economy ecosystem growing, more and more drivers financially depend on online platforms and their algorithms to secure a living. It is pertinent to ask what a fair distribution of income on such platforms is and what power and means the platform has in shaping these distributions.

Online donation platforms, such as DonorsChoose, GlobalGiving, or CrowdFunder, enable donors to financially support entities in need. In a typical scenario, after a fundraiser submits a request specifying her need, donors contribute financially to help raise the target amount within a pre-specified timeframe. While the goal of such platforms is to counterbalance societal inequalities, biased donation trends might exacerbate the unfair distribution of resources to those in need. Prior research has looked at the impact of biased data, models, or human behavior on inequality in different socio-technical systems, while largely ignoring the choice architecture, in which the funding decisions are made.

Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality.

Search engines in online communities such as Twitter or Facebook not only return matching posts, but also provide links to the profiles of the authors. Thus, when a user appears in the top-k results for a sensitive keyword query, she becomes widely exposed in a sensitive context. The effects of such exposure can result in a serious privacy violation, ranging from embarrassment all the way to becoming a victim of organizational discrimination.

Users who wish to leave an online forum often do not have the freedom to erase their data completely from the service providers' (SP) system. The primary reason behind this is that analytics on such user data form a core component of many online providers' business models. On the other hand, if the profiles reside in the SP's system in an unchanged form, major privacy violations may occur if the infrastructure is compromised, or the SP is acquired by another organization. In this work, we investigate an alternative solution to standard profile removal, where posts of different users are split and merged into synthetic mediator profiles. The goal of our framework is to preserve the SP's data mining utility as far as possible, while minimizing users' privacy risks. We present several mechanisms of assigning user posts to such mediator accounts and show the effectiveness of our framework using data from StackExchange and various health forums.

Online service providers gather vast amounts of data to build user profiles. Such profiles improve service quality through personalization, but may also intrude on user privacy and incur discrimination risks. In this work, we propose a framework which leverages solidarity in a large community to scramble user interaction histories. While this is beneficial for anti-profiling, the potential downside is that individual user utility, in terms of the quality of search results or recommendations, may severely degrade. To reconcile privacy and user utility and control their trade-off, we develop quantitative models for these dimensions and effective strategies for assigning user interactions to Mediator Accounts. We demonstrate the viability of our framework by experiments in two different application areas (search and recommender systems), using two large datasets.

YAGO is a large knowledge base that is built automatically from Wikipedia, WordNet and GeoNames. The project combines information from Wikipedias in 10 different languages into a coherent whole, thus giving the knowledge a multilingual dimension. It also attaches spatial and temporal information to many facts, and thus allows the user to query the data over space and time. YAGO focuses on extraction quality and achieves a manually evaluated precision of 95 %. In this paper, we explain how YAGO is built from its sources, how its quality is evaluated, how a user can access it, and how other projects utilize it.

Privacy of Internet users is at stake because they expose personal information in posts created in online communities, in search queries, and other activities. An adversary that monitors a community may identify the users with the most sensitive properties and utilize this knowledge against them (e.g., by adjusting the pricing of goods or targeting ads of sensitive nature). Existing privacy models for structured data are inadequate to capture privacy risks from user posts.

In this paper we study the prevalence of unique entity identifiers on the Web. These are, e.g., ISBNs (for books), GTINs (for commercial products), DOIs (for documents), email addresses, and others. We show how these identifiers can be harvested systematically from Web pages, and how they can be associated with humanreadable names for the entities at large scale.