[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3292500.3330793acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform

Published: 25 July 2019 Publication History

Abstract

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.
In this paper, we analyze job assignments of a major taxi company and observe that there is significant inequality in the driver income distribution. We propose a novel framework to think about fairness in the matching mechanisms of ride hailing platforms. Specifically, our notion of fairness relies on the idea that, spread over time, all drivers should receive benefits proportional to the amount of time they are active in the platform. We postulate that by not requiring every match to be fair, but rather distributing fairness over time, we can achieve better overall benefit for the drivers and the passengers. We experiment with various optimization problems and heuristics to explore the means of achieving two-sided fairness, and investigate their caveats and side-effects. Overall, our work takes the first step towards rethinking fairness in ride hailing platforms with an additional emphasis on the well-being of drivers.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (p3082-suhr.mp4)

References

[1]
Gad Allon, Maxime Cohen, and Park Sinchaisri. 2018. The Impact of Behavioral and Economic Drivers on Gig Economy Workers. SRN 3274628 (2018).
[2]
Anthony B Atkinson. 1975. The economics of inequality. (1975).
[3]
Asia J Biega, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings. In ACM SIGIR.
[4]
Eszter Bokanyi and Aniko Hannak. 2019. Evaluating Algorithm Fairness in an Agent-Based Taxi Simulation. Technical Report. Working Paper.
[5]
Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D Procaccia. 2016. Handbook of computational social choice .Cambridge University Press.
[6]
Ryan Calo and Alex Rosenblat. 2017. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review (2017).
[7]
Abhijnan Chakraborty, Aniko Hannak, Asia J Biega, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fair Sharing for Sharing Economy Platforms. (2017).
[8]
Abhijnan Chakraborty, Gourab K Patro, Niloy Ganguly, Krishna P Gummadi, and Patrick Loiseau. 2019. Equality of voice: Towards fair representation in crowdsourced top-k recommendations. In ACM FAT*. 129--138.
[9]
Harshal A Chaudhari, John W Byers, and Evimaria Terzi. 2018. Putting Data in the Driver's Seat: Optimizing Earnings for On-Demand Ride-Hailing. In WSDM.
[10]
Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2015. Peeking Beneath the Hood of Uber. In ACM IMC.
[11]
Ettore Damiano and Ricky Lam. 2005. Stability in dynamic matching markets. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 52, 1 (2005).
[12]
Patricia Everaere, Maxime Morge, and Gauthier Picard. 2013. Minimal concession strategy for reaching fair, optimal and stable marriages. In AAMAS.
[13]
David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 69, 1 (1962).
[14]
Carla Green and Sam Levin. 2017. Homeless, assaulted, broke: drivers left behind as Uber promises change at the top. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/17/uber-drivers-homeless-assault-travis-kalanick.
[15]
Jonathan Hall, Cory Kendrick, and Chris Nosko. 2015. The effects of Uber's surge pricing: A case study. Univ. of Chicago Booth School of Business (2015).
[16]
Anikó Hannák, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. In ACM CSCW.
[17]
Ernan Haruvy and M Utku Ünver. 2007. Equilibrium selection and the role of information in repeated matching markets. Economics Letters, Vol. 94, 2 (2007).
[18]
Kazuo Iwama, Shuichi Miyazaki, and Hiroki Yanagisawa. 2010. Approximation algorithms for the sex-equal stable marriage problem. ACM Trans. on Algorithms, Vol. 7, 1 (2010), 2.
[19]
Yongzheng Jia, Wei Xu, and Xue Liu. 2017. An optimization framework for online ride-sharing markets. In IEEE ICDCS.
[20]
Michael Luca. 2016. Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp. com.
[21]
F Masarani and Sadik S Gokturk. 1989. On the existence of fair matching algorithms. Theory and Decision, Vol. 26, 3 (1989).
[22]
Hughston McBain. 1944. Are customers always right. The Rotarian (1944).
[23]
Erhun Ozkan and Amy Ward. 2017. Dynamic matching for real-time ridesharing.
[24]
Alvin E Roth. 1986. On the allocation of residents to rural hospitals: a general property of two-sided matching markets. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1986).
[25]
Juliet Schor. 2016. DEBATING THE SHARING ECONOMY. Journal of Self-Governance & Management Economics, Vol. 4, 3 (2016).
[26]
Anthony F Shorrocks. 1980. The class of additively decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1980).
[27]
Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. In ACM SIGKDD.
[28]
Arun Sundararajan. 2014. Trusting the "sharing economy'to regulate itself. The New York Times, Vol. 3 (2014).
[29]
Rudy Telles Jr. 2016. Digital matching firms: A new definition in the "sharing economy" space. ESA issue brief 01--16 (2016).
[30]
Siddharth Tiwari. 2017. `Underhand tactics' boost sales in e-commerce. sundayguardianlive.com/investigation/9881-underhand-tactics-boost-sales-e-commerce.
[31]
Georgios Zervas, Davide Proserpio, and John W Byers. 2017. The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 54, 5 (2017).
[32]
Stephen M Zoepf, Stella Chen, Paa Adu, and Gonzalo Pozo. 2018. The Economics of Ride-Hailing: Driver Revenue, Expenses, and Taxes.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Reinforced stable matching for Crowd-Sourced Delivery Systems under stochastic driver acceptance behaviorTransportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10.1016/j.trc.2024.104916170(104916)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)The Sociodemographic Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms: A Biomedical Informatics PerspectiveLife10.3390/life1406065214:6(652)Online publication date: 21-May-2024
  • (2024)Fairness-Aware Dynamic Ride-Hailing Matching Based on Reinforcement LearningElectronics10.3390/electronics1304077513:4(775)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    KDD '19: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
    July 2019
    3305 pages
    ISBN:9781450362016
    DOI:10.1145/3292500
    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 the author(s) 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].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 25 July 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. algorithmic fairness
    2. matching
    3. social computing

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • European Research Council (ERC)

    Conference

    KDD '19
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    KDD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 110 of 1,200 submissions, 9%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,133 of 8,635 submissions, 13%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)265
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)Reinforced stable matching for Crowd-Sourced Delivery Systems under stochastic driver acceptance behaviorTransportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10.1016/j.trc.2024.104916170(104916)Online publication date: Jan-2025
    • (2024)The Sociodemographic Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms: A Biomedical Informatics PerspectiveLife10.3390/life1406065214:6(652)Online publication date: 21-May-2024
    • (2024)Fairness-Aware Dynamic Ride-Hailing Matching Based on Reinforcement LearningElectronics10.3390/electronics1304077513:4(775)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Dynamic Fairness-aware Recommendation Through Multi-agent Social ChoiceACM Transactions on Recommender Systems10.1145/36906533:2(1-35)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2024
    • (2024)"I will just have to keep driving": A Mixed-methods Investigation of Lack of Agency within the Thai Motorcycle Rideshare Driver CommunityProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36537068:CSCW1(1-28)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Fairness of Interaction in Ranking under Position, Selection, and Trust BiasACM Transactions on Recommender Systems10.1145/36528643:2(1-28)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Social Choice for Heterogeneous Fairness in RecommendationProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3691706(1096-1101)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Promoting Two-sided Fairness in Dynamic Vehicle Routing ProblemsProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference10.1145/3638529.3654207(759-767)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Mitigating Exposure Bias in Online Learning to Rank Recommendation: A Novel Reward Model for Cascading BanditsProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3627673.3679763(1638-1648)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2024
    • (2024)IF-City: Intelligible Fair City Planning to Measure, Explain and Mitigate InequalityIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2023.323990930:7(3749-3766)Online publication date: Jul-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media