Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Study of Position Bias in Digital Library Recommender Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1802.06565 v1 pith:3DHQU35N submitted 2018-02-19 cs.DL cs.IR

A Study of Position Bias in Digital Library Recommender Systems

classification cs.DL cs.IR
keywords positionrankrecommendationsrecommenderbiasdigitalhigheritems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

"Position bias" describes the tendency of users to interact with items on top of a list with higher probability than with items at a lower position in the list, regardless of the items' actual relevance. In the domain of recommender systems, particularly recommender systems in digital libraries, position bias has received little attention. We conduct a study in a real-world recommender system that delivered ten million related-article recommendations to the users of the digital library Sowiport, and the reference manager JabRef. Recommendations were randomly chosen to be shuffled or non-shuffled, and we compared click-through rate (CTR) for each rank of the recommendations. According to our analysis, the CTR for the highest rank in the case of Sowiport is 53% higher than expected in a hypothetical non-biased situation (0.189% vs. 0.123%). Similarly, in the case of Jabref the highest rank received a CTR of 1.276%, which is 87% higher than expected (0.683%). A chi-squared test confirms the strong relationship between the rank of the recommendation shown to the user and whether the user decided to click it (p < 0.01 for both Jabref and Sowiport). Our study confirms the findings from other domains, that recommendations in the top positions are more often clicked, regardless of their actual relevance.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Voting Biases in Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Governance

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Author-selected Snapshot choices show a 58.8 pp higher voting-power share than non-author choices, exceeding approval (27.1 pp) and first-list (7.7 pp) associations.