[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Fairness of Scoring in Online Job Marketplaces

Published: 25 November 2020 Publication History

Abstract

We study fairness of scoring in online job marketplaces. We focus on group fairness and aim to algorithmically explore how a scoring function, through which individuals are ranked for jobs, treats different demographic groups. Previous work on group-level fairness has focused on the case where groups are pre-defined or where they are defined using a single protected attribute (e.g., whites vs. blacks or males vs. females). In this article, we argue for the need to examine fairness for groups of people defined with any combination of protected attributes (the-so called subgroup fairness). Existing work also assumes the availability of worker’s data (i.e., data transparency) and the scoring function (i.e., process transparency). We relax that assumption in this work and run user studies to assess the effect of different data and process transparency settings on the ability to assess fairness.
To quantify the fairness of a scoring of a group of individuals, we formulate an optimization problem to find a partitioning of those individuals on their protected attributes that exhibits the highest unfairness with respect to the scoring function. The scoring function yields one histogram of score distributions per partition and we rely on Earth Mover’s Distance, a measure that is commonly used to compare histograms, to quantify unfairness. Since the number of ways to partition individuals is exponential in the number of their protected attributes, we propose a heuristic algorithm to navigate the space of all possible partitionings to identify the one with the highest unfairness. We evaluate our algorithm using a simulation of a crowdsourcing platform and show that it can effectively quantify unfairness of various scoring functions. We additionally run experiments to assess the applicability of our approach in other less-transparent data and process settings. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in assessing fairness of scoring in a real dataset crawled from the online job marketplace TaskRabbit.

References

[1]
Sara Hajian, Francesco Bonchi, and Carlos Castillo. 2016. Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2125--2126.
[2]
Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2017. Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classification. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS’17). 962--970.
[3]
Michael J. Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’18). 2569--2577.
[4]
Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of exposure in rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery 8 Data Mining (KDD’18). 2219--2228.
[5]
Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. 2010. Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 21, 2 (1 September 2010), 277--292.
[6]
Indre Zliobaite. 2015. A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning. CoRR abs/1511.00148 (2015). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00148.
[7]
Sorelle A. Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2016. On the (im)possibility of fairness. arxiv:1609.07236. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236.
[8]
Mike Noon. 2010. The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive discrimination? Work Employ. Soc. 24, 4 (2010), 728--739.
[9]
Aniko Hannak, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from taskrabbit and fiverr. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’17). 1914--1933.
[10]
Ofir Pele and Michael Werman. 2009. Fast and robust earth mover’s distances. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, 460--467.
[11]
Lee D. Ross, Teresa M. Amabile, and Julia L. Steinmetz. 1977. Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35, 7 (1977), 485.
[12]
Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2000. Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM, 150--157.
[13]
Sreerama K. Murthy. 1998. Automatic construction of decision trees from data: A multi-disciplinary survey. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2, 4 (1998), 345--389.
[14]
Gary Bolton, Jordi Brandts, and Axel Ockenfels. 2005. Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. Econ. J. 115, 506 (2005), 1054--1076.
[15]
Ahmad Ghizzawi, Julien Marinescu, Shady Elbassuoni, Sihem Amer-Yahia, and Gilles Bisson. 2019. FaiRank: An interactive system to explore fairness of ranking in online job marketplaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT’19).
[16]
Shady Elbassuoni, Sihem Amer-Yahia, Ahmad Ghizzawi, and Christine El Atie. 2019. Exploring fairness of ranking in online job marketplaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT’19).
[17]
SurveyMonkey. Calculating the number of respondents you need. Retrieved from https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/How-many-respondents-do-I-need.
[18]
Jay Sethuraman, Chung-Piaw Teo, and Liwen Qian. 2006. Many-to-one stable matching: Geometry and fairness. Math. Oper. Res. 31, 3 (August 2006), 581--596.
[19]
Latanya Sweeney. 2002. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncert. Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 10, 5 (2002), 557--570.
[20]
Neil Stewart, Christoph Ungemach, Adam J. L. Harris, Daniel M. Bartels, Ben R. Newell, Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, et al. 2015. The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 amazon mechanical turk workers. Judg. Decis. Making 10, 5 (2015), 479--491.
[21]
Pierangela Samarati. 2001. Protecting respondents identities in microdata release. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 13, 6 (2001), 1010--1027.
[22]
Keith Kirkpatrick. 2016. Battling algorithmic bias: How do we ensure algorithms treat us fairly? Commun. ACM 59, 10 (2016), 16--17.
[23]
Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. arxiv:1301.6822. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6822.
[24]
Florian Tramèr, Vaggelis Atlidakis, Roxana Geambasu, Daniel J. Hsu, Jean-Pierre Hubaux, Mathias Humbert, Ari Juels, and Huang Lin. 2015. Discovering unwarranted associations in data-driven applications with the fairtest testing toolkit. arxiv:1510.02377. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02377.
[25]
Mahmood Hosseini, Alimohammad Shahri, Keith Phalp, and Raian Ali. 2017. Four reference models for transparency requirements in information systems. Requir. Eng. 23, 2 (2017), 1--25.
[26]
Teofilo F. Gonzalez. 1985. Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance. Theor. Comput. Sci. 38 (1985), 293--306.
[27]
Karen Levy and Solon Barocas. 2017. Designing against discrimination in online markets. Berkeley Tech. LJ 32 (2017), 1183.
[28]
Alex Rosenblat, Karen E. C. Levy, Solon Barocas, and Tim Hwang. 2017. Discriminating tastes: Uber’s customer ratings as vehicles for workplace discrimination. Policy Internet 9, 3 (2017), 256--279.
[29]
Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky. 2017. Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. J.: Appl. Econ. 9, 2 (2017), 1--22.
[30]
David Durward, Ivo Blohm, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2016. Is there PAPA in crowd work?: A literature review on ethical dimensions in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2016 International on IEEE Conferences on Ubiquitous Intelligence 8 Computing, Advanced and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Cloud and Big Data Computing, Internet of People, and Smart World Congress (UIC/ATC/ScalCom/CBDCom/IoP/SmartWorld’16). IEEE, 823--832.
[31]
Ria Mae Borromeo, Thomas Laurent, Motomichi Toyama, and Sihem Amer-Yahia. 2017. Fairness and transparency in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT’17). 466--469.
[32]
Michael Luca and Rayl Fisman. 2016. Fixing discrimination in online marketplaces. Harv. Bus. Rev. (December 2016).
[33]
Benjamin V. Hanrahan, Jutta K. Willamowski, Saiganesh Swaminathan, and David B. Martin. 2015. TurkBench: Rendering the market for turkers. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15), Bo Begole, Jinwoo Kim, Kori Inkpen, and Woontack Woo (Eds.). ACM, 1613--1616.
[34]
Chris Callison-Burch. 2014. Crowd-workers: Aggregating information across turkers to help them find higher paying work. In Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP’14).
[35]
Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’17). 1569--1578.
[36]
L. Elisa Celis, Damian Straszak, and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. 2017. Ranking with fairness constraints. arxiv:1704.06840. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.06840.
[37]
Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich. 2017. Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid State Devices and Materials (SSDM’17). 22.
[38]
Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of exposure in rankings. arxiv:1802.07281. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07281.
[39]
Asia J. Biega, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings. arxiv:1805.01788. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01788.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Gamified Text Testing for Sustainable FairnessSustainability10.3390/su1503229215:3(2292)Online publication date: 26-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Fairness of recommender systems in the recruitment domain: an analysis from technical and legal perspectivesFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2023.12451986Online publication date: 6-Oct-2023
  • (2023)A Framework to Maximize Group Fairness for Workers on Online Labor PlatformsData Science and Engineering10.1007/s41019-023-00213-y8:2(146-176)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science
ACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science  Volume 1, Issue 4
Special Issue on Retrieving and Learning from IoT Data and Regular Papers
November 2020
148 pages
ISSN:2691-1922
DOI:10.1145/3439709
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 November 2020
Accepted: 01 May 2020
Revised: 01 April 2020
Received: 01 June 2019
Published in TDS Volume 1, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Algorithmic fairness
  2. demographic disparity
  3. discrimination
  4. group fairness
  5. scoring
  6. transparency
  7. virtual marketplaces

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • American University of Beirut Research Board (URB)

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)200
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28
Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Gamified Text Testing for Sustainable FairnessSustainability10.3390/su1503229215:3(2292)Online publication date: 26-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Fairness of recommender systems in the recruitment domain: an analysis from technical and legal perspectivesFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2023.12451986Online publication date: 6-Oct-2023
  • (2023)A Framework to Maximize Group Fairness for Workers on Online Labor PlatformsData Science and Engineering10.1007/s41019-023-00213-y8:2(146-176)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2023
  • (2022)SUMMER: Bias-aware Prediction of Graduate Employment Based on Educational Big DataACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science10.1145/35103612:4(1-24)Online publication date: 30-Mar-2022

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Full Access

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media