IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2202.07300.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choosing an algorithmic fairness metric for an online marketplace: Detecting and quantifying algorithmic bias on LinkedIn

Author

Listed:
  • YinYin Yu
  • Guillaume Saint-Jacques

Abstract

In this paper, we derive an algorithmic fairness metric from the fairness notion of equal opportunity for equally qualified candidates for recommendation algorithms commonly used by two-sided marketplaces. We borrow from the economic literature on discrimination to arrive at a test for detecting bias that is solely attributable to the algorithm, as opposed to other sources such as societal inequality or human bias on the part of platform users. We use the proposed method to measure and quantify algorithmic bias with respect to gender of two algorithms used by LinkedIn, a popular online platform used by job seekers and employers. Moreover, we introduce a framework and the rationale for distinguishing algorithmic bias from human bias, both of which can potentially exist on a two-sided platform where algorithms make recommendations to human users. Finally, we discuss the shortcomings of a few other common algorithmic fairness metrics and why they do not capture the fairness notion of equal opportunity for equally qualified candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • YinYin Yu & Guillaume Saint-Jacques, 2022. "Choosing an algorithmic fairness metric for an online marketplace: Detecting and quantifying algorithmic bias on LinkedIn," Papers 2202.07300, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2202.07300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.07300
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Roth & Guillaume Saint-Jacques & YinYin Yu, 2021. "An Outcome Test of Discrimination for Ranked Lists," Papers 2111.07889, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      NEP fields

      This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2202.07300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.