skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Fairness of Scoring in Online Job Marketplaces

Published:25 November 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10618-010-0190-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mike Noon. 2010. The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive discrimination? Work Employ. Soc. 24, 4 (2010), 728--739.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gary Bolton, Jordi Brandts, and Axel Ockenfels. 2005. Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. Econ. J. 115, 506 (2005), 1054--1076.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Latanya Sweeney. 2002. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncert. Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 10, 5 (2002), 557--570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Pierangela Samarati. 2001. Protecting respondents identities in microdata release. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 13, 6 (2001), 1010--1027.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Keith Kirkpatrick. 2016. Battling algorithmic bias: How do we ensure algorithms treat us fairly? Commun. ACM 59, 10 (2016), 16--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. arxiv:1301.6822. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6822.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Teofilo F. Gonzalez. 1985. Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance. Theor. Comput. Sci. 38 (1985), 293--306. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(85)90224-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Karen Levy and Solon Barocas. 2017. Designing against discrimination in online markets. Berkeley Tech. LJ 32 (2017), 1183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5441/002/edbt.2017.46Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Michael Luca and Rayl Fisman. 2016. Fixing discrimination in online marketplaces. Harv. Bus. Rev. (December 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of exposure in rankings. arxiv:1802.07281. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fairness of Scoring in Online Job Marketplaces

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!