arXiv preprint ·
Whose Polarization Is It? Auditing Fairness in Network Polarization Measures
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
A polarization score is supposed to describe a community, not its surroundings. Yet when a minority community is embedded in a larger network, its measured polarization can rise or fall with the size and structure of the majority around it. We ask whether polarization measures are therefore fair to minorities and develop an audit built around two criteria: measurement invariance (MI), which asks whether otherwise equivalent majorities and minorities receive equivalent scores, and structural exogeneity (SE), which asks whether a minority's score changes when its surrounding majority changes. Resolution sensitivity (RS) is treated as a prerequisite for meaningful fairness assessment. We audit seven polarization measure families spanning the three network-operationalizable dimensions of polarization, introducing Network-Weighted Distance (NWD) to fill an unserved extremeness-separation combination. Across controlled synthetic networks, mechanism-isolating diagnostic topologies, and real political and communication networks, no measure passes all applicable checks. Minorities are systematically scored as more polarized than equivalent majorities. We trace this dependence to two separate channels: majority structure can alter the opinions that opinion-reading measures consume, and, on a different path, opinion-orthogonal structural change can affect the arithmetic of structural measures. Reading opinions is thus double-edged, letting contamination in when structure moves opinions but shielding the score when structure changes and opinions do not. We close with practical guidance for reporting polarization scores without inheriting these biases.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Social & Information Networks
Content associations with answer selection and engagement in supply chain community question answering
Validating LLM-generated political networks with survey-reported partisan exposure
High prevalence of antagonizing rhetoric in trending topics on Twitter/X
"You" Is Not Toxic: How LLM Labelers Rewrite the Web's Conversation Laws
Political Narratives in the 2024 Moldovan Presidential Election: Stance, Amplification, and Influence
Get the few papers worth your time in Social & Information Networks every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.