\section{Introduction}
Ranking systems are at the core of many online services, including search engines, recommender systems, or news feeds in social media. Recent research suggests that the underlying ranking algorithms may impact society, playing an active role in the spread of misinformation~\cite{vosoughi2018spread}, political polarization~\cite{Dandekar5791}, or trustworthiness~\cite{diaz2008through}. They might also reinforce existing judgment biases~\cite{Baeza18}.

Rankings systematically affect the information people access about products, services, events, or ideas, because users are more likely to click on top-ranked items~\cite{joachims2017accurately, wang2018position, LeMens2018WisdomOfTheCrowd}. When items are ranked based on popularity, this leads to a self-reinforcing dynamics according to which  popular items become increasingly more popular~\cite{salganik2006experimental}.

In this paper, we identify a surprising effect of popularity-based rankings.
Consider a setting with two distinct classes of news sources that differ in their political orientations, e.g., left-leaning or right-leaning. We show that, under a fairly broad set of conditions, \emph{the total share} of web traffic (proportion of clicks) attracted by a given class of  news sources \emph{decreases} with the number of news sources in that class. We call this phenomenon the `few-get-richer' effect. For example, if there are 20 news sources, the total number of clicks on left-leaning sources will be larger when there are just 3 of these sources than when there are 17 of them.

Intuition suggests that popular items should be more relevant and trustworthy than unpopular ones. Yet, extensive research indicates that popularity is often not very informative about quality, especially in settings characterized by `rich-get-richer' dynamics (sometimes called the `Matthew effect')~\cite{LeMensManSci2017, LeMensTopicsInCS2018,merton1968matthew,salganik2006experimental},
or information cascades~\cite{banerjee1992simple,bikhchandani1992theory}. In these settings, the randomness inherent to the dynamics of the system implies that items that become the most popular are not always those with the best quality. The `few-get-richer' effect adds to research on the `rich-get-richer' dynamics by showing that popularity-based rankings do not only create `noise' in the ranking, but can also lead to a systematic ranking bias: when there are two distinct classes of items, items from the smaller class become better ranked than similar items from the larger class.

The few-get-richer effect emerges in settings characterized by two design features. The first feature consists in the ranking of items in terms of popularity (i.e., items with more clicks are higher ranked). The second feature is a partition of the available items in two (or more) distinct classes.

We make two reasonable behavioral assumptions. The first assumption is users' tendency to click on top-ranked items. The second assumption is that users have heterogeneous preferences for the item classes. Some users have a preference for items of a particular class, while others have a preference for items of other classes. Still other users are indifferent to the item class.

Returning to our news search example, suppose there are few left-leaning and many right-leaning news sources. We assume there are three types of users: left-leaning, right-leaning, and indifferent. The heterogeneous preference assumption means that left-leaning users are more likely to click on left-leaning news sources, right-leaning users are more likely to click on right-leaning news sources, and indifferent users click exclusively based on rank. Even if the left-leaning news sources are unpopular, left-leaning individuals will seek them out. Because there are few such news sources, the clicks of these left-leaning individuals will be concentrated on a few news sources, and these sources will tend to `shoot up to the top'.
Once a news source has gotten close to the top, it will attract not only the clicks from the left-leaning individuals, but also the clicks of indifferent users, simply because of the rich-get-richer dynamics. This is the few-get-richer effect.

\iffalse

in addition to left-leaning users who tend to click on left-leaning news sources and the opposite for right-leaning users, we need a third set of users without strong political preferences.
These latter users play an important role because they contribute to rich-get-richer dynamic that leads top ranked (or almost top ranked) items to attract more and more traffic. We show that under a fairly broad set of conditions, the smaller class of news sources tends to attract a larger total number of clicks. This is the few-get-richer effect.

Compare this to the dynamics that would emerge if there were many left-leaning and few right-leaning news sources. The clicks of the left-leaning people would be distributed over many left-leaning news sources, and thus none of them would shoot up to the top. Instead, the few right-leaning news sources would concentrate the clicks of the right-leaning people, and these sources would `shoot up to the top'. Once a news source has gotten to the top (or almost at the top), it attracts not only the clicks from the people with opinions strongly consistent with its slant, but also the clicks of those people who do not have strong political orientations.
\fi

\section{Related Work}

Our results contribute to the understanding of the limitations of recommender systems~\cite{herlocker2004evaluating,mcnee2006being,LeMens2018WisdomOfTheCrowd,ciampaglia2018how,Ilan2014, Che2018}, with direct applications to the design of fair, transparent and efficient ranking systems~\cite{Castillo,Biega,zehlike2017fa}, as well as methods to reduce the spread of  misinformation~\cite{kim2018leveraging,vosoughi2018spread} or uncivil behavior~\cite{muddiman2017news,cheng2017anyone}.

An extensive literature on modeling (click) user behavior is weakly related to our work~\cite{zhang2011user,chapelle2009dynamic,dupret2008user,richardson2007predicting}. Closer to our work, several papers have proposed models of the dynamics of interactions between individual searches and ranking algorithms, e.g., for understanding the feedback loop between ranking system and user queries~\cite{demange}, explaining the observed mitigation of search engines' popularity bias~\cite{Fortunato12684}, or the competition of memes using limited attention~\cite{weng2012competition}.
The paper closest to ours is~\cite{Germano2018}, which also obtains a few-get-richer effect in a model
where individuals get multiple signals and where (news) items are ranked via a probabilistic popularity-based ranking. Besides being simpler, our model works with a discrete and deterministic ranking of the websites rather than a continuous and probabilistic one. Among other things, this allows for a tighter connection with the experiment of Section~\ref{sec:exp}.

\iffalse
\section{Related Work}
The presented work is connected with two important areas of research
Bias in search engines. It is well known tat

Spread of misinformation

Search

We focus on ranking

Evidence of Bias search engines, political~\cite{introna}, manipulation effect (SEME)~\cite{EpsteinE4512}.

Bias in coverage of commercial Web sites~\cite{VAUGHAN2004693}.

About types of bias in search engines.
\cite{van2007relevance}
"resources in search engine development are overwhelmingly allocated on the basis of market factors or scientific/technological concerns. Fairness and representativeness, core elements of the journalists’ definition of quality media content, are not key determiners of search engine quality in the minds of search engine producers. Rather, alternative standards of quality, such as customer satisfaction and relevance, mean that tactics to silence or promote certain websites or site owners (such as blacklisting, whitelisting, and index “cleaning”) are seen as unproblematic."

\cite{diaz2008through} "Google may favor popularity over richness; it provides advertising that competes directly with "editorial" content; it so overwhelmingly dominates the industry that users seldom get a second opinion, and this is unlikely to change. "

Bias on the web ~\cite{Baeza18}. Same article title also at ACM comms, but focused exclusively on search engines~\cite{mowshowitz2002bias}.

Current consensus on popularity and search results: a www paper~\cite{cho2004impact} concludes from "an experimental study conducted over 7 months, that popular pages are indeed getting more popular while unpopular pages are getting relatively less popular" and using models that "when search engines rank pages based on their popularity, it takes several orders of magnitude more time for a new page to become popular even if the page is of high quality".
"winner takes all effect"~\cite{hindman2003googlearchy}.

Position bias: About position bias and how to correct it without randomization~\cite{wang2018position}.
user models~\cite{dupret2008user}

"The popularity bias of Web search engines has received considerable attention in the literature. It has been argued that search engines amplify the rich-get-richer effect of the Web graph: popular Web pages would attract even more visitors than they would without
search engines, yielding a superlinear relationship between traffic and PageRank\cite{cho2004impact,introna,mowshowitz2002bias}. Empirical results have not supported this hypothesis, showing instead that popular websites receive less traffic
than predicted by a rich-get-richer model Mitigation of search engine bias~\cite{Fortunato12684}."

About PageRank and improvements \cite{langville2004deeper}.
In \cite{nematzadeh2017algorithmic} a very similar model. Item type is replaced by a quality that is not segregated preventing the effect.
See also refs in~\cite{}

Maybe interesting for references inside~\cite{LIAO20171} "survey the existing ranking algorithms, both static and time-aware, and their applications to evolving networks"

"On Facebook~\cite{bakshy2015exposure} found that despite decreased exposure, users still see about 25\% of ideologically
challenging news on their feed."

Quantification of such bias~\cite{Kulshrestha}.

User Search behavior (eye tracking, strong bias toward higher ranked items) ~\cite{pan}.

Fake news~\cite{Lazer1094} and fake news detection~\cite{Tschiatschek}

\cite{diaz2008through}

\fi

\section{The Model}
\label{sec:model}

We present a stylized model of a search environment where individuals use a search engine to look for information on a binary issue.
At the center of the model is the ranking algorithm, which ranks and directs individuals to the different websites, based on the popularity of individuals' choices.

\subsection{Model of the Search Environment} There are $M$ items, each of which belongs to exactly one of two classes.
For example, the items can be news articles and the class of an article can be whether the source is known to be left-leaning or right-leaning.
A different, visual, example can comprise images about animals, some of which are cats while the others are dogs.
In general, each of the $M$ items is characterized by a binary signal~$\{ 0, 1 \}$ that defines its class;
let $M_k$ denote the set and number of items of class $k$, $k\in \{ 0, 1 \}$.

There is a single popularity-based ranking algorithm which, starting with a given initial ranking $(r_1)$, ranks all the items in $M$ according to the number of clicks received. Let $r_n \in \{ 1, \ldots , M \}^M$ denote the ranking seen by individual $n$, where $r_{n,m} \in \{ 1, \ldots, M \}$ denotes the rank of item $m$ observed by individual $n$.

There are $N$ individuals, each of which is characterized by a parameter $\gamma_n$, which can be of one of three types. The three types are denoted by Type $0$, Type $1$ and Type $2$, and their proportions in the population are $p_0$, $p_1$ and $p_2=1-p_0-p_1$, respectively.
Type 0 (resp.~Type 1) individuals have a preference for clicking on items of class $0$ (resp. class $1$).  Type $2$ individuals are indifferent between clicking on items of class $0$ or of class $1$ {\em absent ranking}. We represent the set of possible types by $\Gamma=\{\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1, \Gamma_2\}$, where $\Gamma_i$ denotes the probability that an individual of Type $i$ (i.e., with $\gamma_n= \Gamma_i$) clicks on an item of class $0$ {\em absent ranking}. Our assumptions about the preferences of the individuals in the three types imply $\Gamma_0>\frac{1}{2}$, $\Gamma_1<\frac{1}{2}$ and $\Gamma_2=\frac{1}{2}$.

We summarize these preferences in terms of propensities $\varphi_{n,m}$ with which individual $n$ with $\gamma_n\in\Gamma$ clicks on item $m$, defined by:
\begin{align}\label{eq:phi}
\varphi_{n,m} & =
\begin{cases}
\vspace{.08in}
\frac{\gamma_n}{M_0}     & \text{ if $m \in M_0$} \\
\frac{1-\gamma_n}{M_1} & \text{ if $m \in M_1$} .\\
\end{cases}
\end{align}
For simplicity, in this section, we consider the extreme and symmetric case, where $\Gamma_0=1$, $\Gamma_1=0$ and $p_0=p_1=p>0$.

\subsection{Model of Stochastic Choices}
Individuals enter one after the other and observe the ranked list of items, and based on the ranking and on their preference for the signals given by $\varphi_{n,m}$, they click on one of the $M$ items according to a probabilistic choice function obtained as follows.
We use the function $\beta^{\left(M-r_{n,m}\right)}$ to weigh the propensities $\varphi_{n,m}$, whereby~$\beta>~1$ calibrates an individual's search cost or attention bias, so that an item ranked exactly one position higher has $\beta$ times as much probability of being clicked. The probability individual $n$ clicks on website $m$ is given by:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
\rho_{n,m} =
\frac{\beta^{\left(M-r_{n,m}\right)} \varphi_{n,m}}{\sum_{m' \in M} \beta^{\left(M-r_{n,m'}\right)} \varphi_{n,m'}} .
\end{equation}
Thus, individual $n$ observes $r_{n,m}$ and clicks  on a website according to $\rho_{n,m}$. His click gets recorded by the ranking algorithm, which updates its ranking to $r_{n+1}$. This affects the ranking of the websites observed by the next individual, who clicks on a website according to $\rho_{n+1,m}$ and so on. We denote the total clicking probability on items of class $k$ ($M_k$) by $\rho_{n,M_k}=\sum_{m \in M_k}\rho_{n,m}$.

Overall, this defines a search environment $\mathcal{E}$ with parameters $(M, M_1); (N, \beta, \Gamma, p); r_1$.
We assume $\beta > 1$ and $0 < p < \frac{1}{2}$ so that individuals are subject to an attention bias and are heterogeneous in the sense that there are nonzero shares of Types 0, 1 and 2.

\subsection{The Few-Get-Richer Effect}
The following result shows how few items of a given class can attract more traffic than many more items of the same class taken together. In particular, it implies that if there is just one item of a given class, then it will attract more traffic by itself than $M-1$ such items taken together in a corresponding environment where there are $M-1$ such items.

\begin{prop
Fix two popularity-based search environments $\mathcal{E}$ and  $\mathcal{E}'$ that differ only in the number of items of class 1 ($M_1$ and $M_1'$ respectively). Suppose $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta} < \frac{\beta M}{1+\beta} <  M_1'$, then there exists $\overline{N}$ such that, for any $N \ge \overline{N}$, the total clicking probability ($\rho_{N,M_1}$) by individual $N$ on an item in $M_1$ in environment $\mathcal{E}$  is strictly greater than the total clicking probability ($\rho_{N,M_1'}$) by individual $N$ on an item in $M_1'$ in environment $\mathcal{E}'$, provided $p>0$ is sufficiently small.
\end{prop

\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}

 \includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{fig_fabr2}
\end{center}
\caption
{Total traffic on all $M_1$ items of class 1 as a function of $M_1$ for the limit distribution of the process $\rho_n$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:rho} for different values of $\beta$, with $M=20$, $\Gamma = \{ 0.8, 0.2, 0.5\}$ and $p=p_0=p_1=0.4$.}
\label{fig:fabr}
\end{figure}

The proof is in three steps. First, we characterize a limit ranking ($r_{\infty}$) of the process $\rho_{n}$ defined by Eq.~\eqref{eq:rho} and show it constitutes a (stable) limit. Second, we show it is the unique such limit ranking. Finally, we compute total traffic on all items in $M_1$ at the limit
and show it is over half of total traffic when $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$, and hence greater than total traffic on all items in $M_1'$ for $M_1' > \frac{\beta M}{1+\beta}$.

Step 1. Consider $M$ items and a ranking $r_{\infty} \in \{ 1, \ldots, M \}$ defined by $r_{\infty, k} = k$, for $k=1,\ldots,M$. Then, by popularity ranking, $r_{\infty}$ is a (stable) limit ranking of the process $\rho_{n}$ if and only if at $r_{\infty}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:limit}
\rho_{n,1} (r_{\infty}) > \rho_{n,2} (r_{\infty}) > \ldots > \rho_{n,M} (r_{\infty})
\end{equation}
holds for the expected individual $n$.
Suppose $r_{\infty}$ is such that the $M$ items are ranked in two blocks of items of the same class where, if $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$,  the first ranked $M_1$ items are all in $M_1$ and the remaining ones (bottom ranked) are all in $M_0$; and symmetrically if $M_1 > \frac{\beta M}{1+\beta}$, the bottom ranked $M_1$ items are all in $M_1$ and the remaining ones (top ranked) are all in $M_0$.
To see that these constitute limit rankings, suppose $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$, and consider the ranking $r_{\infty}$, where the first $M_1$ items are ranked on top. In this case, the corresponding clicking probabilities for $k \in M_1$ (i.e., $k \in \{ 1, \ldots, M_1 \}$) are given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:limitclicksM1}
 \rho_{n,k} (r_{\infty})
= \frac{\beta^{(M-k)} (1-\gamma_{n})/M_1}{\sum_{k=1}^{M_1} \beta^{(M-k)} (1-\gamma_{n})/M_1 + \sum_{k=M_1+1}^{M} \beta^{(M-k)} \gamma_{n}/M_0},  \nonumber
\end{equation}
and  for $k \in M_0$ (i.e., $k \in \{ M_1+1,\ldots, M \}$) satisfy:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:limitclicksM0}
\rho_{n,k} (r_{\infty})
= \frac{\beta^{(M-k)} \gamma_{n}/M_0}{\sum_{k=1}^{M_1} \beta^{(M-k)} (1-\gamma_{n})/M_1 + \sum_{k=M_1+1}^{M} \beta^{(M-k)} \gamma_{n}/M_0}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\rho_{n,k} (r_{\infty}) > \rho_{n,k+1} (r_{\infty})$ holds within the classes $M_1$ and $M_0$, that is, for $k=1, \ldots, M_1-1$ and for $k=M_1+1, \ldots, M-1$
Hence it suffices to show that $\rho_{n,k=M_1} (r_{\infty}) > \rho_{n,k=M_1+1} (r_{\infty})$.
This is easily checked for the expected individual $n$ (whose value of $\gamma_n$ is drawn from $\Gamma= \{1,0, \frac{1}{2} \}$ according to the probabilities, respectively, $p_0=p, p_1=p<\frac{1}{2}$ and $p_2=1-2p>0$).

Step 2: To see that the above ranking constitutes a unique limit, we show that no other ranking satisfies Eq.~\eqref{eq:limit} and that, for any other ranking,
whenever an item is in the less numerous class (say $M_1$ when $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$), it will always get strictly more clicks in expectation than the item of the other more numerous class ranked just above. Assume $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$, then it can be checked that the two strongest constraints to be satisfied are the ones comparing the clicking probability on the lowest-ranked item of class $M_1$ when $(i)$ it is ranked in the $M$th position while all remaining $M_1-1$ items are ranked in the first $M_1-1$ positions, and when $(ii)$  it is ranked in position $M_1+2$ while all remaining $M_1-1$ items are ranked in the first $M_1-1$ positions. Both are easily seen to be satisfied whenever $p=0$ and $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$. By continuity they continue to hold for sufficiently small $p>0$. The case $M_1 > \frac{\beta M}{1+\beta}$, which implies $M_0 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$ and which has the $M_0$ items ranked on top holds by symmetry.

Step 3. It suffices to show that whenever $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$, then the first ranked items in $M_1$ always get strictly more that half the share of the total clicks. Since the share of traffic on the individual items is given by the probabilities $\rho_{n,k} (r_{\infty})$ defined
above, it suffices to show that for any  $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$, $\rho_{n,M_1} (r_{\infty})  = \sum_{k=1}^{M_1} \rho_{n,k} (r_{\infty}) > \frac{1}{2}$. Given our assumptions on $p$ and $\Gamma$, this is easily checked for the expected individual $n$ (using the fact that, for any $1 \le K < K' \le M$, $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\beta^{M-K} /K > \sum_{k=1}^{K'} \beta^{M-K'} / K'$). It also implies that when $M_1'>\frac{\beta M}{1+\beta}$ all items in $M_1'$ will (be bottom-ranked) and will obtain less than half the total traffic. $\Box$

\smallskip
When the share of items in $M_1$ is close to one half ($\frac{M}{1+ \beta} < M_1 < \frac{M}{2}$), then there may be multiple limit rankings and the above proof no longer applies. We believe that the few-get-richer result may still go through in these cases, but it is necessary to evaluate the likelihood of the different limit rankings and guarantee that limit rankings are more likely to give classes with fewer items a higher probability of being higher ranked. This proof goes beyond the scope of this paper.

Similarly, for interior types ($\Gamma_0 < 1$, $\Gamma_1 > 0$).
As Figure~\ref{fig:fabr} shows for different values of~$\beta$ (see also the simulations in the next section), the effect continues to hold: when $M_1$ has few items (minority case $M_1 < \frac{M}{1+\beta}$) it obtains a larger proportion of clicks than when $M_1$ has many items (majority case $M_1 > \frac{\beta M}{1+\beta}$).

\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.58\columnwidth]{fig1as}
\includegraphics[width=.58\columnwidth]{fig2as}
\includegraphics[width=.58\columnwidth]{fig3as}
\end{center}
\caption
{Proportion of clicks on all $M_1$ items of class 1 as a function of $M_1$ for runs of $N=100$, and assuming $M=20$, $\beta=1.1, \Gamma = \{ 0.9, 0.1, 0.5 \}, p_0=p_1=0.4$ and uniform initialization, as baseline, and varying $\beta$ (left plot), $p_2=1-p_0-p_1$ (middle plot), and the log-ratio $\log{\frac{p_0}{p_1}}$ (right plot). Error bars indicate confidence intervals for 100 different random realizations.}
\label{fig:clicks}
\end{figure*}

\section{Simulations of the Model}
\label{sec:sims}

We now analyze through simulations the presence of the few-get-richer effect in different settings.
Our focus is on analyzing the click-through rate (CTR), defined as the the ratio of the probability of clicking on an item in $M_1$ to the total number of clicks $N$ (which we fix at $N=100$ users), as a function of $M_1$ for different settings.
We mainly consider stochastic choices with $\Gamma = \{ 0.9, 0.1, 0.5 \}$, which means that non-indifferent users do not exclusively click on one of the two classes.
We assume that the ranking $r_{n}$ is proportional to the number of clicks that the item received at time $n$.
As before, we consider a ranking of $M=20$ items with the $M_1$ items initially at the bottom. In this case, instead of the limit ranking, we characterize the dynamic transient during which the minority class may reach the top of the ranking. This makes our analysis dependent on the initial conditions. For an item $m$ initially at position $r_{1,m}$, we assume a \emph{uniform} initialization, with all items having one click.

\subsection{Dependence on $\beta$}
We first consider the dependence on the ranking effect, parametrized by $\beta$.
Larger values of $\beta$ correspond to a stronger relative ranking effect compared to the propensities.
Here, we consider a symmetric case with $p_0=p_1=p=0.4$.

Figure~\ref{fig:clicks} (left) shows the CTR for different values of $\beta$.
The resulting CTR is almost symmetric.
We observe a monotonic decrease as a function of $M_1$ in all cases, showing, in particular, that the minority class \emph{always} receives more clicks than the majority one.

We can differentiate between three cases, corresponding to small, intermediate and large values of $\beta$, respectively.
In general, larger values of $\beta$ lead to a relatively larger CTR for the minority class, due to relatively larger probability of clicking on top ranked items.
For small values of $\beta$, the CTR is the smallest, but even here the effect as a function of $M_1$ is particularly pronounced for small (and large) $M_1$.
For intermediate values of $\beta$, the flat region for intermediate values of $M_1$ disappears and the CTR decreases monotonically with constant slope, indicating a decrease independent of $M_1$.
Finally, for larger values of $\beta$, the CTR is largest, and the effect as a function of $M_1$ is smallest for small (and large) $M_1$.
In this extreme case, for $M_1=1$, the single item at the bottom quickly reaches the top and attracts almost all the traffic, leaving almost no traffic to the remaining $M-1$ items of the other class.

\iffalse
Figure~\ref{fig:1a}(b) shows the results for the case of a linear initialization.
In this case, only for smaller values of $\beta$, the CTR is higher for the minority items, unless they are already on the top ($M_1>10$).
As before, the CTR generally decreases as a function of $M_1$.
Whereas in the previous initialization the bottom items became first ranked after a few clicks, in this scenario they need many more clicks to
reach the top, causing the smaller CTR for $M_1<10$.
For stronger ranking effects, it takes even more clicks to reach top positions, and vice-versa.
Therefore the role of $\beta$ in this case is reversed.
Remarkably, for smaller $\beta$, the CTR is much higher for one single item than for two.
In particular, for $\beta=1.1$ the single item attracts approximately $15\%$ more traffic than all the other $M_0$ items.
\fi

From these simulations, we can conclude that
the few-get-richer effect is robust to varying $\beta$.

\subsection{Dependence on $p_2$}

\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{fig2b1}
\includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{fig2b2}
\includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{fig2b3}
\end{center}
\caption
{Examples of ranking evolution for different values of $M_1$.
The items in $M_1$ always start at the bottom of the ranking.
With $M_1=2$ (left plot), the two items quickly move to the top.
With $M_1=9$ (middle plot), the items in $M_1$ are spread through the different ranking positions.
Finally, with $M_1=18$ (or $M_0=2$) (right plot), the items $M_1$ eventually stay at the bottom.}
\label{fig:rankings}
\end{figure*}

We now analyze the CTR as a function of the proportion of indifferent users $p_2=1-p_0-p_1$.
For this, we choose $\beta=1.1$ and vary the proportion of indifferent users while keeping $p_0=p_1$.
To better analyze this dependence, we consider extreme preferences, so that only indifferent users can really click on both items, that is, we assume $\Gamma=\{1,0,0.5\}$.

Figure~\ref{fig:clicks}(middle) shows the results. We observe that, in this case, the few-get-richer effect is more pronounced as $p_2$ increases.
Having a larger proportion of indifferent users results in relatively more clicks per item, and hence a larger amplification of ranking effect, which is a key ingredient for the few-get-richer effect to emerge. With less extreme preferences, e.g., $\Gamma=\{0.9,0.1,0.5\}$, the effect in $p_2$ is still present, but less pronounced (data not shown).

We conclude that the indifferent users play a key role in amplifying the effect of the ranking, and that in general, having a larger proportion of them contributes importantly towards the few-get-richer effect.

\subsection{Dependence on the ratio $\frac{p_0}{p_1}$}

So far we have considered cases where the distribution of user types was symmetric, $p_0=p_1=p$.
In practice this need not be the case since, e.g., the minority class might also be preferred by a minority of users.
We analyze the effect as a function of $lr=\log\frac{p_0}{p_1}$.

Figure~\ref{fig:clicks}(right) shows the results for different values of $lr$.
As expected, the few-get-richer effect is more pronounced when there is a larger relative proportion of users that prefer the minority item.
To see this, compare the blue line, where $p_1=0.6>p_0=0.2$ (there are three times more users who prefer the `minority' item), and the purple line, where $p_1=0.1<p_0=0.7$.
We see that the effect is still present for this choice of parameters, even when there are seven times more users who prefer the majority item. Here, the proportion of indifferent users is set to $p_2=0.2$. Consistent with the results of the previous subsection, if we increase $p_2$ and keep the same ratios, the effect becomes more pronounced.
We conclude that the effect is also robust to different ratios of proportions $lr$.

\subsection{Ranking evolution}
Finally, we illustrate the typical behavior of the ranking evolution for different values of $M_1$, assuming our usual baseline parameter values for $\beta$, $\Gamma$, and $p$ and uniform initialization.
Figure~\ref{fig:rankings} shows the results, which confirm the idea that minority items tend to move towards the top.

\section{Online Experiment with Human Participants}\label{sec:exp}

To test the predictions of the model, we executed an online experiment in which participants clicked on one out of 20 possible options (pictures).\footnote{Data from the experiment are available at \url{https://osf.io/nwjyf/}.} The options belonged to two classes, $M_0$ and $M_1$, just as in the model. As in the simulations reported above, we measure the effect of the popularity-based ranking of options as the total number of clicks attracted by items of type $M_1$. To this end, we created 8 independent conditions. In conditions D1 to D4, the ordering of the options changed dynamically as a function of the number of clicks received by each option, with the most popular option (in terms of cumulative number of clicks) at the top of the screen and the least popular option at the bottom of the screen. The conditions differed in terms of the number of options in $M_0$ and $M_1$, as summarized in Table~\ref{tab: Human Experiment}. The number of options in $M_1$ was 17, 12, 8, or 3 in conditions D1, D2, D3 and D4, respectively.

These four `dynamic' conditions were matched to four `static' conditions with the same sets of options $M_0$ and $M_1$. In the static conditions, the ranking of options did not change over time and was set to the initial ranking in the matching dynamic condition. We denote these static conditions by S1, S2, S3, and S4.

Comparisons of matched pairs of conditions allows us to establish the causal effect of the ranking algorithm on the total traffic attracted by each option. Comparisons of the 4 dynamic conditions allows us to test the prediction that the total traffic attracted by options in $M_1$ decreases with the number of options in $M_1$.

To keep the experimental setup as simple as possible, the options in our experiment were not news sources, but pictures of dogs and cats. In order to activate their preferences for cat or dog pictures, participants were first asked whether they were a `cat person', a `dog person', or `neither a cat person nor a dog person.' Answers to this identity question allowed us to compute the proportion of participants in each of the 3 types discussed in the model section. Then participants were shown a set of 20 pictures in a vertical list. In this setup, $M_0$ is the set of cat pictures (initially at the top of the screen) and $M_1$ is the set of dog pictures (initially at the bottom). The initial popularity of all pictures was set to 1, consistent with the uniform initialization of the previous section.

\subsection{Methodological Details}
We recruited 786 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk. It was administered via a Qualtrics survey embedded in the Amazon Mechanical Turk webpage as an iframe. After signing up for the task, participants read the informed-consent form. Then they were randomly assigned to one of 8 conditions. They first answered a question about their type: ``Are you more of a cat person or a dog person?'' with three possible choices ``I am a cat person'' / ``I am neither a cat person nor a dog person'' / ``I am a dog person.'' On the next screen they were shown 20 buttons with  ``Please click on a photo from the following list of photos of cats and dogs and rate it according to your liking.'' The buttons were displayed in a vertical list. Participants could initially see 3 to 4 buttons and had to scroll down to access the other buttons.
After clicking a button, participants were shown the corresponding picture and gave it a rating of 1 to 5 stars. The rating task was presented as a reason to ask participants to select an item according to their preferences. The collected ratings are not discussed because our interest is only in the clicking behavior of the participant. Participants were paid \$0.15 for their time.

\subsection{Results}

\begin{table}
\caption{Experiment results. The `Sim1' rows report the average traffic attracted by Dog pictures ($M_1$) over 1000 simulations of the choice model with a setting matching the exact number of participants of each identity type in each condition. The `Sim2' rows report the average traffic attracted by Dog pictures ($M_1$) over 1000 simulations of the choice model with 100 users in each condition where the numbers of users who are a `dog person', `neither a dog person nor a cat person' and a `cat person' are 55, 15 and 30, respectively (same frequencies for all conditions).\label{tab: Human Experiment}}

\begin{tabular}{cc|c|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{6}{c}{}\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\# Cats ($M_{0}$)} & 3 & 8 & 12 & 17\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\# Dogs ($M_{1})$} & 17 & 12 & 8 & 3\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Dynamic Button Ordering}\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Condition} & D1 & D2 & D3 & D4\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\# participants} & 96 & 102 & 99 & 101\tabularnewline
\hline
\# participants  & Cat person & 34 & 30 & 24 & 29\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
in each & Neither & 9 & 21 & 11 & 16\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
type & Dog person & 53 & 51 & 64 & 56\tabularnewline
\hline
Dog  & Experiment & .53 & .69 & .76 & .71\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
traffic  & Sim1 & .46 & .56 & .73 & .76\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
share & Sim2 & .47 & .60 & .67 & .75\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Static Button Ordering}\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Condition} & S1 & S2 & S3 & S4\tabularnewline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\# participants} & 96 & 101 & 95 & 96\tabularnewline
\hline
\# participants & Cat person & 34 & 30 & 25 & 33\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
in each & Neither & 13 & 19 & 9 & 15\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
type & Dog person & 49 & 52 & 61 & 48\tabularnewline
\hline
Dog  & Experiment & .44 & .37 & .40 & .27\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
traffic  & Sim1 & .41 & .37 & .39 & .28\tabularnewline
\cline{2-6}
share & Sim2 & .44 & .39 & .35 & .30\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \tabularnewline
\end{tabular}

\end{table}

\subsubsection{Participant Types}
30\% indicated they were `Cat persons' ($p_0=0.30$), 55\% `Dog persons' ($p_1=0.55$), 15\% neither ($p_2=0.15$).
\subsubsection{Total Traffic Attracted by $M_1$ (Dog pictures)}
Dog pictures were initially ranked at the bottom the screen. First we discuss the effect of popularity-based ranking of options on the total traffic attracted by Dog pictures. In the 4 dynamic conditions, Dog pictures attracted substantially more traffic than in the corresponding static condition (compare the two rows `Experiment' in the top and bottom panels of Table~\ref{tab: Human Experiment}). In other words, ordering the options in terms of popularity had a systematic effect on the share of traffic attracted by options that started at the bottom of the choice screen.

Unsurprisingly, in all static conditions, the total traffic attracted by Dog pictures was lower than 50\%. The set of Dog pictures attracted more traffic when there were relatively more Dog pictures. For example, while 17 Dog pictures attracted 44\% of the traffic, 3 Dog pictures attracted 27\%.

The pattern is completely different in the dynamic conditions. First, in all dynamic conditions, the total traffic attracted by Dog pictures was higher than 50\%. The most important finding is that the total traffic attracted by Dog pictures was \emph{larger} with just 3 Dog pictures (and 17 Cat pictures) than with 17 Dog pictures (and 3 Cat pictures)!  Similarly, the total traffic attracted by Dog pictures was \emph{larger} with 8 Dog pictures (and 12 Cat pictures) than with 12 Dog pictures (and 8 Cat pictures). These results are consistent with the predictions of our model. The total traffic attracted by Dog pictures did not decrease monotonically with the size of the set of Dog pictures (it is larger with 8 Dog pictures than with 3 Dog pictures). This pattern is seemingly inconsistent with the predictions of the simulations (Fig.~\ref{fig:clicks}). Yet, this lack of monotonicity can be explained by the fact that the conditions were not perfectly balanced with respect to the distribution of identity types of the participants. In condition D3 (8 Dog pictures) there were substantially more Dog lovers (64/99) than in condition D4 (3 Dog pictures, 56/101). This is a chance event resulting from the fact that we elicited the identity type of the participants after the random assignment into conditions, thus we could not balance types within conditions.

\subsubsection{Estimated Parameters of the Choice Model}
We estimated the parameters of the stochastic choice model, Eq.~\eqref{eq:rho}, using maximum likelihood on the whole dataset. Our parameter estimates are $\beta = 1.22$, $\Gamma_C=.74$ for Cat persons ($\Gamma_0$ in the model), and $\Gamma_D=.08$ for Dog persons ($\Gamma_1$ in the model). Cat and Dog persons had strong tendencies to choose pictures from the class consistent with their identity type.

We used these estimated parameters to simulate choices and the dynamics of picture ranks in the 8 experimental conditions. Simulations reported in rows `Sim1' in Table~\ref{tab: Human Experiment} indicate a close match between the simulated data and the actual traffic proportions attracted by Dog pictures (both in static and dynamics conditions).

We also used the estimated parameters to simulate what would happen if there were 100 participants in each condition and if the distributions of identity types were the same in all conditions (`Sim2' rows). We find a decreasing monotonous relation between the number of Dog pictures and the share of traffic attracted by Dog pictures. This pattern is consistent with the qualitative prediction of our model.

\subsubsection{Summary}
Overall, the results indicate that the experimental setting falls within the boundary condition of application of our theory. They provide a proof-of-concept that popularity-based ordering of options can lead to the counter-intuitive phenomenon that when there are fewer options of one class, the total share of traffic attracted by this class of options becomes larger.

\section{Discussion \& Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}

The few-get-richer effect can have both positive and negative effects on the quality of the information people obtain from search results. On the positive side, when there are few relevant items, the few-get-richer effect may help them become top-ranked, making them more accessible. At the same time, the few-get-richer effect can contribute to the spread of misinformation. It may help few irrelevant or `fake news' items become top-ranked, especially if there is a strong preference for such items and only few websites report them.

Our analyses highlight a potential unintended effect of regulations that `ban' particular `alternative' news sources known for spreading `fake news'. When a sizeable proportion of users have a preference for identifiable `alternative' news sources, the removal of some of these news sources might lead to an increase in the total traffic attracted by the remaining `alternative' news sources. This could result in more overall exposure to `fake news'!

To neutralize the few-get-richer effect, our theory suggests that it may be advisable to keep track of the number of items in each class when incorporating clicks in the search engine algorithm. Ideally, the ranking algorithm should use the popularity of the different items in a way that is neutral to the number of items in each class.

The few-get-richer effect also has implications for the design of recommender systems. The learning efficiency of these systems is impeded by the \emph{presentation bias} problem: items shown to the user can get clicks whereas items not shown get no clicks. The  recommender system thus cannot learn about the relevance of the latter items. A popular solution to this challenge is the \emph{explore-and-exploit} approach, in which some items from a minority class are randomly inserted in the search results ~\cite{agarwal2009explore}. This purportedly increases the amount of exploration (clicks on the minority class), and thus increases the learning opportunities of the system at the cost of slightly hurting the user experience~\cite{mcnee2006being, herlocker2004evaluating}. The few-get-richer effect suggests precisely the opposite. Adding more of those items might reduce, rather than increase, the total amount of exploration.

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}


\section*{Introduction}
\noindent Nitrogen-vacancy (NV) defect centres in diamond are a promising system for engineering a variety of sensors owing to their spin-dependent fluorescence and room-temperature quantum coherence properties \cite{8911201520130701, doi:10.1146/annurev-physchem-040513-103659}. Single NV centres have been used to demonstrate high-resolution sensing of a variety of quantities including magnetic and electric fields, mechanical strain, and temperature \cite{PhysRevLett.112.047601, 0034-4885-77-5-056503, Casola2018, Dolde2011, Kucsko2013}. Meanwhile, ensembles of NV centres have been employed to extend this nanoscale sensing functionality to the regime of widefield microscopy (fig. \ref{overall_diagram}\,a), enabling real-space studies of electronic devices and biological systems \cite{1367-2630-13-4-045021, LeSage2013, doi:10.1063/1.3385689, Simpson2016, Tetiennee1602429, Broadway2018}.\newline

\noindent A common method applied to increase the measurement sensitivity of NV centres is to increase the photon collection efficiency, which is typically less than 5\% for NVs contained in bulk diamond \cite{4837081120100301}. This approach has been extensively utilised for applications with single NV centres via photonic structuring of the diamond surface \cite{2543809120150114,doi:10.1063/1.4902818,4837081120100301,doi:10.1063/1.4952953, doi:10.1063/1.3519847, doi:10.1063/1.3573870, PhysRevLett.114.136402, PhysRevX.5.031009, doi:10.1063/1.4871580}. In addition, patterning of diamond surfaces to increase the surface-to-volume ratio has recently been shown to improve the sensitivity of area-averaged NMR measurements \cite{2877528020170804}, however the prospects for enhancing the performance of widefield imaging systems remain largely unexplored. In particular, optimal surface geometries for imaging with near-surface ensembles of NV centres have yet to be identified.\newline

\noindent Here we consider a new approach for widefield imaging with NV centres, coupling near-surface ensembles to closely-packed arrays of diamond nanopillars for enhanced sensitivity. We report the detailed characterisation of discrete ensembles of near-surface NV centres contained within the tips of diamond nanopillars (figure \ref{overall_diagram}\,b-d) with diameters varying from 400\,nm to 1\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m. Our results demonstrate that such nanostructuring enhances both the spin and fluorescence characteristics of the ensembles by comparing to unstructured regions on the same sample. We find that pillars increase the rate of photon collection by more than an order of magnitude without sacrificing any spin coherence properties, yielding a sensitivity increase of more than 3 times. To illustrate the utility of this system for widefield microscopy, we perform optically-detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) spectral imaging (figure \ref{overall_diagram}\,e, f) and reconstruct the mechanical stress tensor in the pillars with single-pillar (sub-micron) resolution. \newline

\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{fig1v3.png}
\caption{\textbf{Widefield sensing with arrays of nanopillar hosted NV ensembles.} a) Widefield measurement setup, consisting of 532nm laser excitation onto a diamond sample, and collection of NV emissions into an sCMOS camera. Microwave (MW) excitation is provided to the NV centres for magnetic resonance measurements through an omega-shaped gold loop patterned onto a glass coverslip. b) Scanning-electron micrograph of a section of a 500nm tip-diameter pillar array. c) Widefield PL image of a section of a 600\,nm tip-diameter pillar array. d) Schematic image of a single diamond nanopillar, which contains all four possible crystallographic orientations of NV centres and funnels their emissions through the diamond substrate and into collection optics. e) Simplified energy-level diagram of an NV centre. A 532\,nm laser non-resonantly excites the NV from the ground to the excited state via a spin-conserving transition, while microwave-frequency excitation induces transitions into the magnetic sublevels of the ground state. Photoluminescence emission of the NV centre is reduced in these sublevels due to an increased probability of relaxation through a non-fluorescent (spin-singlet) decay pathway. f) Optically-detected magnetic-resonance signal obtained from a single 600\,nm pillar with a magnetic field applied out of alignment with the <111> axes of the sample. The four pairs of peaks correspond to the four orientations the NV centre can assume in the diamond lattice, with the lower and higher frequency peaks being transitions into the $\ket{-1}$ and $\ket{+1}$ sublevels respectively. Circles are measured data points, while the solid line is a fit comprised of eight Lorentzian peaks.}
\label{overall_diagram}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2v3.png}
\caption{\textbf{Photoluminescence characterisation of diamond nanopillars.} a) Scanning confocal photoluminescence map of an array of 800\,nm pillars and b) a flat surface on the same sample. Count rates have been corrected for the 10$\times$ neutral density filter placed in front of the APD. c) PL count rate increase over the flat surface for individual pillars. Error bars are derived from standard deviations of measured count rates. d) PL spectra obtained for the flat surface and from a section of 400\,nm tip diameter pillars. e) Estimated NV\textsuperscript{-} and NV\textsuperscript{0} component spectra extracted from measured spectra using a non-negative matrix factorization method. f) Estimated fraction of negatively-charged NV centres as a function of pillar tip diameter as computed using the spectra in panel (e). Error bars indicate the maximum and minimum population ratios obtained for each diameter.}
\label{PL_enhancement}
\end{figure}

\section*{Fabrication and Photoluminescence Characterisation}

\noindent To quantify improvements in sensitivity, we utilize the general scaling factor for the sensitivity of an NV spin-readout measurement in the photon shot-noise limited regime \cite{Taylor2008}

\begin{equation}
\eta \propto \frac{1}{\gamma C\sqrt{\epsilon N_{NV}  T}},
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio of the NV centre, C is the spin contrast,  $\epsilon$ is the rate of photon collection per NV centre, $N_{NV}$ is the number of NV centres in the collection volume, and $T$ is the relevant decoherence time of the NV centres under a given sensing protocol: $T\textsubscript{2}^*$ (intrinsic decoherence) for static field measurements, $T_{2}$ (decoherence under a dynamical decoupling sequence) for measurements of oscillatory signals \cite{Taylor2008,Maze2008}.\newline

\noindent We use a 2\,mm$\times$2\,mm$\times$150\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m $<$100$>$ electronic-grade single-crystal diamond wafer synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (Element 6) and implanted with 10\textsuperscript{13}cm\textsuperscript{-2} \textsuperscript{15}N ions at 6\,keV (InnovIon) and annealed in vacuum at 950\ensuremath{^{\circ}} C for 3 hours. Arrays of pillars 1.7\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m high were fabricated across areas 100\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m $\times$ 100\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m in size using electron-beam lithography and an oxygen reactive-ion etching process, with pillar tip diameters ranging from 400\,nm to 1000\,nm (steps of 100\,nm) and a pillar-to-pillar pitch equal to twice the tip diameter in all cases. Additional 300\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m\textsuperscript{2} areas were masked from etching to preserve unpatterned regions on the sample to act as experimental controls.\newline

\noindent Quantification of PL collection enhancement was carried out using a custom-built scanning confocal microscope utilising a 60$\times$ 1.40\,N.A. oil-immersion lens, resulting in a diffraction-limited spot size of 400\,nm for the 532\,nm CW laser used to excite the NVs. For confocal microscopy measurements, 55\ensuremath{\upmu} W of excitation power was used to pump the NV centres and PL was measured by passing the collected emission through a 564nm long-pass dichroic mirror followed by a 690nm band-pass filter (width of 120nm) and a 10x neutral density (ND) filter into an avalanche photodiode (APD) \cite{PhysRevB.94.155402}.\newline

\noindent To determine the PL enhancement offered by our arrays over the unpatterned surface (figure \ref{PL_enhancement} a, b), we divide the PL measured when focused optimally on a pillar by that obtained when focused on the unpatterned surface (figure \ref{PL_enhancement}\,c). We find that there is a maximal increase of roughly 11.5 times in the measured PL intensity from NV ensembles contained in nanopillars, which is in agreement with prior studies on the coupling of single NV centres to similar tapered nanopillars (showing a roughly 10$\times$ increase in PL) \cite{2543809120150114,4837081120100301}. However, in contrast to single NV centres the high density of our implanted layer results in uniform emission intensity across the whole array, whereas significant brightness variation from pillar to pillar often occurs in the single or few emitter regime due to implantation statistics and random radial placement of emitters within the pillar \cite{doi:10.1063/1.4871580,4837081120100301}. We find that the range of diameters from 700\,nm to 900\,nm is optimal for maximizing PL from single pillars (within the range of diameters tested), but note that the drop in collection for the 400 and 500\,nm pillars could be a result of fabrication defects related to the resolution of our EBL system. Regardless, the minimal variation in PL across the 700-900\,nm range of diameters implies that pillars in this range possess considerable tolerance to fabrication irregularities. \newline

\noindent PL spectra were measured from each pillar array and the control area using 1\,mW CW excitation at 532\,nm, where both excitation and collection were performed from the top of the sample (ie. not through the pillars) to minimize changes to the spectra due to wavelength-dependent collection efficiencies in the pillars \cite{2543809120150114}. We observe a decreased relative contribution to the spectral region corresponding to the neutrally-charged NV centre (NV\textsuperscript{0}) (roughly 575\,nm to 640\,nm) on the pillars compared to the flat surface, (figure \ref{PL_enhancement}\,d). To quantify this observation, we utilise a spectral decomposition technique based on non-negative matrix factorisation (NNMF) to find the two most-likely component spectra that make up our entire data set (figure \ref{PL_enhancement} e) \cite{Orth:18,BERRY2007155}. As expected, these components closely resemble the emission spectra of the negative and neutrally-charged NV centres \cite{000314343500001n.d.}. Note that a small amount of mixing between these two components is apparent and results from the number of spectra fed into the NNMF algorithm (82 total) - an increased number of training spectra would yield improved estimates. Using these component spectra, we then estimate the fraction of negatively-charged NV centres that contribute to each measured spectrum by scaling the (integrated) spectral contribution of each component by the excited-state lifetimes of their respective charge-states, taken here to be 12\,ns for NV\textsuperscript{-} and 16\,ns for NV\textsuperscript{0} (figure \ref{PL_enhancement} f) \cite{PhysRevA.97.063408}. We find 78$\pm$2\% of fluorescent NV centres on the unpatterned surface in the NV\textsuperscript{-} state, consistent with prior observations under 532\,nm excitation for single NV centres \cite{000314343500001n.d.}, but observe a steadily increasing proportion of NV\textsuperscript{-} as tip diameter is decreased.\newline

\noindent The change in the NV charge state (as seen in the collected PL) in the pillar arrays may be explained by one of the following effects: (i) An increase in local laser excitation power due to reduced reflection from the pillar tips compared to the unpatterned surface; (ii) wavelength-dependent emission patterns due to in-plane grating effects caused by neighbouring pillars \cite{Li2015}, which may change the apparent ratio of NV\textsuperscript{-} to NV\textsuperscript{0}; (iii) surface band-bending effects, though one would expect more NV\textsuperscript{0} with an increased surface-to-volume ratio \cite{Broadway2018}; (iv) constrained diffusion of negative charge in the pillars, as electrons liberated from photo-excited ensembles of NVs and nitrogen impurities can diffuse over substantial distances and may affect NV charge-state ratios \cite{Jayakumar2016}. Regardless of the origin of the effect, an increase in the contribution of the NV\textsuperscript{-} spectrum to the total emission spectrum will increase the spin contrast in NV\textsuperscript{-}-based sensing, while a true increase in the NV\textsuperscript{-} population will also increase the number of defects available to interact with the environment. Thus, the pillar arrays offer an additional enhancement in measurement sensitivity via the parameters $C$ and $N_{NV}$ in Eq. 1, on top of the increase in collection efficiency ($\epsilon$).

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = \columnwidth]{fig3v2.png}
\caption{ \textbf{Characterisation of spin properties of pillar-hosted ensemble NV. More than 500 pillars were investigated for each diameter by widefield measurement.} a) Representative spin-relaxation (T\textsubscript{1}) decay curves taken from an array of 600\,nm pillars and an unstructured surface. Dashed lines are stretched exponential fits. b) Representative spin coherence (T\textsubscript{2}) curves measured using a Hahn-echo pulse sequence for an array of 600nm pillars and the flat surface. Dashed lines are exponential decay fits modulated by a cosine function (see text). c) T\textsubscript{1} times measured for all fabricated pillar diameters and the flat surface. d) Exponential stretch parameters obtained from fits to T\textsubscript{1} decay curves. The increased values in the pillars reflect higher-frequency local magnetic noise. e) T\textsubscript{2} decay times measured for the different pillar diameters and the flat surface. f) T\textsubscript{2}* decay times for the different pillars deduced from high-resolution ODMR spectra. Error bars are fit uncertainties in all cases.}
\label{spin_properties}
\end{figure}
\section*{Spin Characterisation}
\noindent To investigate the impact of the fabrication process on the spin properties of the NV centres, widefield measurements of spin relaxation (T\textsubscript{1}) and coherence (Hahn-echo T\textsubscript{2}) times were performed using a home-built widefield imaging setup (figure \ref{overall_diagram}\,a) \cite{Simpson2016}. T\textsubscript{1} decay curves were fit using exponential decay functions of the form $PL(\tau)\propto \exp(-(\frac{\tau}{T_{1}})^s)$, where $\tau$ is the evolution time and $s$ is a parameter ranging from 0.5 to 1 that accounts for the distribution of T\textsubscript{1} times from the NV ensemble due to the local magnetic noise environment \cite{Hall2016}. T\textsubscript{2} decay curves were fit using a modulated exponential decay function of the form $PL(\tau)\propto ($A$-$B$\, \cos{(\omega \tau + \phi))} \exp(-\frac{\tau}{T_{2}})$, where A, B, $\omega$, and $\phi$ are fit to best match the coherence revivals due to native \textsuperscript{13}C in the sample (figure \ref{spin_properties} b). T\textsubscript{2}* was measured from high-resolution ODMR spectra by taking the FWHM of N\textsuperscript{15} hyperfine interaction peaks \cite{PhysRevB.97.085402}.\newline

\noindent The nanopillars improved NV\textsuperscript{-} T\textsubscript{1} by approximately 60\% and T\textsubscript{2} and T\textsubscript{2}* times by 20\% compared to the unpatterned surface for all pillar diameters tested (figure \ref{spin_properties}\,c - e). This ensemble behaviour contrasts the typical observation that the spin properties of single NV centres are deteriorated (or, at the very least, preserved) by the fabrication of nanophotonic structures \cite{2543809120150114,doi:10.1063/1.4871580}. As the pillars are expected to increase excitation intensity by focusing, we do not attribute the change in T\textsubscript{1} to inter-defect electron tunneling during dark intervals, which should lead to shorter measured T\textsubscript{1} times as excitation power increases \cite{BluvsteinChargeState}. Interestingly, the stretch parameter used in the T\textsubscript{1} fits shows a similar dependence to the coherence times (figure \ref{spin_properties} f), which implies a higher-frequency magnetic noise environment for pillar-hosted NVs versus the unstructured surface \cite{Hall2016}. We therefore suspect that the coherence improvements result from a modification of the charge populations and dynamics of the near-surface defects in the pillars, which are the primary sources of noise that limit dense (near-surface) ensemble NV coherence times \cite{PhysRevB.97.085402}. Using both the spin and photoluminescence enhancements reported here, the expected improvement in ODMR sensitivity offered by the pillars as per Eq. 1 is calculated to be 3.8$\pm$0.25 for the 800\,nm (brightest) pillars.\newline
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{fig4v5.png}
\caption{\textbf{Mapping of mechanical strain in nanopillar arrays.} a) Widefield PL image showing four arrays of fluorescent nanopillars with different diameters (clockwise from top-left, pillar diameters are 1000\,nm, 900\,nm, 800\,nm, and 700\,nm). Also shown is the $xy$ coordinate system used to define the stress tensor components. b) Maps of total axial stress for the four pillar arrays. A polishing defect is visible in the 800\,nm array (bottom right). c) Zoomed image of axial stress on the 900\,nm pillar array, with two representative pillars highlighted. d) Zoom of one of the 8 ODMR peaks for the two pillars highlighted in c), showing a shift in one of the NV families of roughly 1\,MHz due to strain. e), f), g) maps of shear stress tensor components $\sigma_{xy}$, $\sigma_{yz}$, and $\sigma_{xz}$ respectively. h) Standard deviations in strain measurements across the measured arrays and the unpatterned surface. As these values are indicative of measurement noise, an improvement in shear stress sensitivity $>$ 3 is apparent for all pillar diameters, while there is an improvement in sensitivity to axial stress of around 2. The scale bar is 10\,\ensuremath{\upmu} m in all instances.}
\label{stress_maps}
\end{figure*}
\section*{Stress Tensor Imaging}
\noindent The closely-packed nature of the pillar arrays lends them applicability as a widefield imaging tool. By performing ODMR spectral imaging (ie. acquiring a spectrum for each pixel in an image) it is possible to obtain two-dimensional images of quantities such as magnetic field, electric field, and mechanical strain \cite{Tetiennee1602429, Broadway2018, StressMappingPaper}. We illustrate this capability on the nanostructured surface by forming images of the stress tensor components on our brightest pillars utilizing the method introduced in Ref. 36. Shown in figure \ref{stress_maps}\,(a) is a widefield PL image of the area we studied, consisting of arrays with pillar diameters of 1000nm, 900nm, 800nm, and 700nm (clockwise from top-left), and the resulting spatial maps of total axial stress ($\sigma_{\rm axial}=\sum \sigma_{ii}$) in these pillars are displayed in figure \ref{stress_maps}\,(b) and (c). An example of an ODMR shift of a particular NV orientation from two representative pillars is displayed in panel (d), which shows an $\approx$2\,MHz shift between the two (note: to extract the full stress tensor we fit all eight ODMR peaks to the NV spin Hamiltonian as outlined in ref. \cite{StressMappingPaper}).\newline

\noindent We find a steady increase in the magnitude of total axial stress as the pillar diameter is decreased. Conversely, the three shear stress components $\sigma_{xy}$, $\sigma_{yz}$, and $\sigma_{xz}$ (figure \ref{stress_maps}\,e - g) show no dependence on pillar diameter but do trend from more negative values in $\sigma_{xy}$ to more positive values in $\sigma_{xz}$. Note also that the magnitudes of total axial as well as the three components of shear stress are comparable to those measured for the unpatterned surface, which indicates that the fabrication process has had a minimal impact on in-built mechanical strain. We find that the average measurement noise is lower for the pillar arrays than for the unpatterned surface, as evidenced by a lower standard deviation in all measured components of stress (figure \ref{stress_maps}\,h). Since the measurement times for the pillars and the unstructured surface are the same, we infer an increase in ODMR specral imaging sensitivity for the different components $\sigma_{axial}$, $\sigma_{xy}$, $\sigma_{yz}$, and $\sigma_{xz}$ of 2.8, 3.3, 3.7, and 3.2, respectively. These values are consistent with the sensitivity increases of around 3.8 predicted by equation 1, though we suspect the somewhat lower values result from the fact that there is a clear variation in stress from one pillar to the next, so the standard deviations across the pillar arrays are not purely representative of the measurement noise floor.
\section*{Conclusion}
\noindent In conclusion, we have fabricated and characterised closely-packed arrays of diamond nanopillar waveguides containing discrete, dense ensembles of NV centres. The pillars showed more than an order-of-magnitude improvement (11.5 times) in collected PL intensity over the unpatterned surface, with little variation over the optimal range of diameters from 700-900\,nm. The fraction of the PL spectrum belonging to the negatively-charged NV centre was also found to increase with decreasing pillar diameter, and we found average increases in T\textsubscript{1} of 60\% and in Hahn-echo T\textsubscript{2} and T\textsubscript{2}* of 20\% for pillar-hosted ensembles over unpatterned surfaces. These improvements indicate that an increase in widefield measurement sensitivity of at least 3.7 times can be achieved through nanostructuring of the diamond surface. This comes at the cost of spatial resolution being limited by the array pitch, but the apparent lack of pillar size/spacing dependence on coherence times suggests that similar results would be obtained with pitches below the diffraction limit of NV\textsubscript{-} emissions (100-200\,nm), which would eliminate this drawback. Finally, we demonstrated widefield imaging of the intrinsic stress in the pillar tips, showing that implanted ensemble NV can be used to image the stress tensor in diamond micro-and-nanomechanical devices. Our results demonstrate a simple method for increasing the sensitivity of widefield measurements with nitrogen-vacancy ensembles, thereby reducing acquisition times and opening up possibilities for higher-speed imaging of dynamic magnetic, electrical, thermal, and mechanical processes at the micro-and-nano scales.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (ARC) through grants DE170100129, CE170100012, and FL130100119. D.J.M. and D.A.B. are supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. This work was performed in part at the Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication (MCN) in the Victorian Node of the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF).