Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3308560.3317587acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Algorithms for Fair Team Formation in Online Labour Marketplaces✱

Published: 13 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

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  [13, 14, 16, 23, 25, 29]. 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  [2, 3, 4, 17]. 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  [8, 19], 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.

References

[1]
A. An, M. Kargar, and M. ZiHayat. Finding affordable and collaborative teams from a network of experts. In SDM, pages 587–595, 2013.
[2]
A. Anagnostopoulos, L. Becchetti, C. Castillo, A. Gionis, and S. Leonardi. Power in unity: forming teams in large-scale community systems. In ACM CIKM, pages 599–608, 2010.
[3]
A. Anagnostopoulos, L. Becchetti, C. Castillo, A. Gionis, and S. Leonardi. Online team formation in social networks. In WWW, pages 839–848, 2012.
[4]
A. Anagnostopoulos, C. Castillo, A. Fazzone, S. Leonardi, and E. Terzi. Algorithms for hiring and outsourcing in the online labor market. In KDD, 2018.
[5]
F. Chierichetti, R. Kumar, S. Lattanzi, and S. Vassilvitskii. Fair clustering through fairlets. CoRR, abs/1802.05733, 2018.
[6]
T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein. Introduction to algorithms. MIT press, 2009.
[7]
C. Dorn and S. Dustdar. Composing near-optimal expert teams: A trade-off between skills and connectivity. In OTM Conferences (1), pages 472–489, 2010.
[8]
M. Feldman, S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. E. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In KDD, 2015.
[9]
A. Gajewar and A. D. Sarma. Multi-skill collaborative teams based on densest subgraphs. In SDM, pages 165–176, 2012.
[10]
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979. ISBN 0-7167-1044-7.
[11]
B. Golshan, T. Lappas, and E. Terzi. Profit-maximizing cluster hires. In ACM SIGKDD, pages 1196–1205, 2014.
[12]
S. Hajian, F. Bonchi, and C. Castillo. 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, KDD ’16, pages 2125–2126, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4232-2.
[13]
J. Howe. The rise of crowdsourcing. WIRED (June), 2006.
[14]
L. Jeppesen and K. Lakhani. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5):1016–1033, 2010.
[15]
M. Kargar and A. An. Discovering top-k teams of experts with/without a leader in social networks. In CIKM, pages 985–994, 2011.
[16]
A. Kittur, B. Smus, S. Khamkar, and R. Kraut. Crowdforge: Crowdsourcing complex work. In Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 43–52, 2011.
[17]
T. Lappas, K. Liu, and E. Terzi. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In ACM SIGKDD, pages 467–476, 2009.
[18]
G. Laumeister. The next big thing in e-commerce: Online labor marketplaces, 2014. Last accessed on 2018-08-18.
[19]
K. Levy and S. Barocas. Designing against discrimination in online markets. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 32:1183, 2017.
[20]
C.-T. Li and M.-K. Shan. Team formation for generalized tasks in expertise social networks. In SocialCom/PASSAT, pages 9–16, 2010.
[21]
A. Majchrzak and A. Malhotra. Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4):257–268, 2013.
[22]
A. Majumder, S. Datta, and K. V. M. Naidu. Capacitated team formation problem on social networks. In KDD, pages 1005–1013, 2012.
[23]
T. Malone, R. Laubacher, and C. Dellarocas. The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3):21–31, 2010.
[24]
G. Reich and P. Widmayer. Beyond steiner’s problem: A VLSI oriented generalization. In Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 15th International Workshop, WG ’89, Castle Rolduc, The Netherlands, June 14-16, 1989, Proceedings, pages 196–210, 1989.
[25]
D. Retelny, S. Robaszkiewicz, A. To, W. Lasecki, and J. Patel. Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. In ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 75–85, 2014.
[26]
C. Riedl and A. W. Woolley. Teams vs. Crowds: Incentives, member ability, and collective intelligence in temporary online team organizations. 2016.
[27]
P. Slavık. A tight analysis of the greedy algorithm for set cover. Journal of Algorithms, 25(2):237–254, 1997.
[28]
M. Sozio and A. Gionis. The community-search problem and how to plan a successful cocktail party. In ACM SIGKDD, pages 939–948, 2010.
[29]
J. Surowiecki. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Anchor Books, 2004.
[30]
V. V. Vazirani. Approximation algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Fair Projections as a Means toward Balanced RecommendationsACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/366492916:1(1-32)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Clustering Based Collaborative Learning Grouping for Knowledge BuildingWeb and Big Data10.1007/978-981-97-7244-5_14(210-223)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Vector Representation Learning of Skills for Collaborative Team Recommendation: A Comparative StudyWeb Information Systems Engineering – WISE 202410.1007/978-981-96-0567-5_15(193-207)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Algorithms for Fair Team Formation in Online Labour Marketplaces✱
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WWW '19: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference
      May 2019
      1331 pages
      ISBN:9781450366755
      DOI:10.1145/3308560
      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]

      In-Cooperation

      • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 13 May 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Crowdsourcing
      2. Fair Set Cover
      3. Fairness
      4. Outsourcing
      5. Team Formation

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      WWW '19
      WWW '19: The Web Conference
      May 13 - 17, 2019
      San Francisco, USA

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)34
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
      Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Fair Projections as a Means toward Balanced RecommendationsACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/366492916:1(1-32)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2024
      • (2024)Clustering Based Collaborative Learning Grouping for Knowledge BuildingWeb and Big Data10.1007/978-981-97-7244-5_14(210-223)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
      • (2024)Vector Representation Learning of Skills for Collaborative Team Recommendation: A Comparative StudyWeb Information Systems Engineering – WISE 202410.1007/978-981-96-0567-5_15(193-207)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2024
      • (2023)Two-Sided Capacitated Submodular Maximization in Gig PlatformsWeb and Internet Economics10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_34(600-617)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2023
      • (2023)Multi-Objective Fairness in Team AssemblyNew Trends in Database and Information Systems10.1007/978-3-031-42941-5_10(106-116)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2023
      • (2023)Bootless Application of Greedy Re-ranking Algorithms in Fair Neural Team FormationAdvances in Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-37249-0_9(108-118)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2023
      • (2022)The Secret Lives of ePortfoliosApplying Data Science and Learning Analytics Throughout a Learner’s Lifespan10.4018/978-1-7998-9644-9.ch012(239-259)Online publication date: 2022
      • (2022)Exploring gender biases in ML and AI academic research through systematic literature reviewFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2022.9768385Online publication date: 11-Oct-2022
      • (2022)OpeNTF: A Benchmark Library for Neural Team FormationProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3511808.3557526(3913-3917)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2022
      • (2022)A Genetic Algorithm-Based Approach to Support Forming Multiple Scrum Project TeamsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.318634710(68981-68994)Online publication date: 2022
      • 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

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media