Paper detail

Robust and fair work allocation

In today's digital world, interaction with online platforms is ubiquitous, and thus content moderation is important for protecting users from content that do not comply with pre-established community guidelines. Having a robust content moderation system throughout every stage of planning is particularly important. We study the short-term planning problem of allocating human content reviewers to different harmful content categories. We use tools from fair division and study the application of competitive equilibrium and leximin allocation rules. Furthermore, we incorporate, to the traditional Fisher market setup, novel aspects that are of practical importance. The first aspect is the forecasted workload of different content categories. We show how a formulation that is inspired by the celebrated Eisenberg-Gale program allows us to find an allocation that not only satisfies the forecasted workload, but also fairly allocates the remaining reviewing hours among all content categories. The resulting allocation is also robust as the additional allocation provides a guardrail in cases where the actual workload deviates from the predicted workload. The second practical consideration is time dependent allocation that is motivated by the fact that partners need scheduling guidance for the reviewers across days to achieve efficiency. To address the time component, we introduce new extensions of the various fair allocation approaches for the single-time period setting, and we show that many properties extend in essence, albeit with some modifications. Related to the time component, we additionally investigate how to satisfy markets' desire for smooth allocation (e.g., partners for content reviewers prefer an allocation that does not vary much from time to time, to minimize staffing switch). We demonstrate the performance of our proposed approaches through real-world data obtained from Meta.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.