Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiring
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ranking algorithms are being widely employed in various online hiring platforms including LinkedIn, TaskRabbit, and Fiverr. Prior research has demonstrated that ranking algorithms employed by these platforms are prone to a variety of undesirable biases, leading to the proposal of fair ranking algorithms (e.g., Det-Greedy) which increase exposure of underrepresented candidates. However, there is little to no work that explores whether fair ranking algorithms actually improve real world outcomes (e.g., hiring decisions) for underrepresented groups. Furthermore, there is no clear understanding as to how other factors (e.g., job context, inherent biases of the employers) may impact the efficacy of fair ranking in practice. In this work, we analyze various sources of gender biases in online hiring platforms, including the job context and inherent biases of employers and establish how these factors interact with ranking algorithms to affect hiring decisions. To the best of our knowledge, this work makes the first attempt at studying the interplay between the aforementioned factors in the context of online hiring. We carry out a largescale user study simulating online hiring scenarios with data from TaskRabbit, a popular online freelancing site. Our results demonstrate that while fair ranking algorithms generally improve the selection rates of underrepresented minorities, their effectiveness relies heavily on the job contexts and candidate profiles.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 2.
11 papers.
- 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systemscited by 135
- 2021Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challengescited by 56
- 2022Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directionscited by 30
- 2024Understanding Biases in ChatGPT-based Recommender Systems: Provider Fairness, Temporal Stability, and Recencycited by 28
- 2022Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directionscited by 21
- 2022An External Stability Audit Framework to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiringcited by 10
- 2024From Biased Selective Labels to Pseudo-Labels: An Expectation-Maximization Framework for Learning from Biased Decisionscited by 4
- 2024A Dynamic Model of Performative Human-ML Collaboration: Theory and Empirical Evidencecited by 2
- 2025Culture Cartography: Mapping the Landscape of Cultural Knowledgecited by 2
- 2023Auditing Gender Analyzers on Text Datacited by 1
- 2025Algorithmic Hiring and Diversity: Reducing Human-Algorithm Similarity for Better Outcomescited by 1
- 2025Culture Cartography: Mapping the Landscape of Cultural Knowledge31 Oct 2025
- 2025Algorithmic Hiring and Diversity: Reducing Human-Algorithm Similarity for Better Outcomes20 May 2025
- 2024From Biased Selective Labels to Pseudo-Labels: An Expectation-Maximization Framework for Learning from Biased Decisions27 Jun 2024
- 2024A Dynamic Model of Performative Human-ML Collaboration: Theory and Empirical Evidence22 May 2024
- 2024Understanding Biases in ChatGPT-based Recommender Systems: Provider Fairness, Temporal Stability, and Recency19 Jan 2024
- 2023Auditing Gender Analyzers on Text Data9 Oct 2023
- 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systems20 Feb 2023
- 2022Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions23 May 2022
- 2022Fair ranking: a critical review, challenges, and future directions29 Jan 2022
- 2022An External Stability Audit Framework to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiring23 Jan 2022
- 2021Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challenges1 Jan 2021