Paper detail

Algorithms for Fair Team Formation in Online Labour Marketplaces

As freelancing work keeps on growing almost everywhere due to a sharp decrease in communication costs and to the widespread of Internet-based labour marketplaces (e.g., guru.com, feelancer.com, mturk.com, upwork.com), many researchers and practitioners have started exploring the benefits of outsourcing and crowdsourcing. Since employers often use these platforms to find a group of workers to complete a specific task, researchers have focused their efforts on the study of team formation and matching algorithms and on the design of effective incentive schemes. Nevertheless, just recently, several concerns have been raised on possibly unfair biases introduced through the algorithms used to carry out these selection and matching procedures. For this reason, researchers have started studying the fairness of algorithms related to these online marketplaces, looking for intelligent ways to overcome the algorithmic bias that frequently arises. Broadly speaking, the aim is to guarantee that, for example, the process of hiring workers through the use of machine learning and algorithmic data analysis tools does not discriminate, even unintentionally, on grounds of nationality or gender. In this short paper, we define the Fair Team Formation problem in the following way: given an online labour marketplace where each worker possesses one or more skills, and where all workers are divided into two or more not overlapping classes (for examples, men and women), we want to design an algorithm that is able to find a team with all the skills needed to complete a given task, and that has the same number of people from all classes. We provide inapproximability results for the Fair Team Formation problem together with four algorithms for the problem itself. We also tested the effectiveness of our algorithmic solutions by performing experiments using real data from an online labor marketplace.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.