Rawlsian Fairness in Online Bipartite Matching: Two-sided, Group, and Individual
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Online bipartite-matching platforms are ubiquitous and find applications in important areas such as crowdsourcing and ridesharing. In the most general form, the platform consists of three entities: two sides to be matched and a platform operator that decides the matching. The design of algorithms for such platforms has traditionally focused on the operator's (expected) profit. Since fairness has become an important consideration that was ignored in the existing algorithms a collection of online matching algorithms have been developed that give a fair treatment guarantee for one side of the market at the expense of a drop in the operator's profit. In this paper, we generalize the existing work to offer fair treatment guarantees to both sides of the market simultaneously, at a calculated worst case drop to operator profit. We consider group and individual Rawlsian fairness criteria. Moreover, our algorithms have theoretical guarantees and have adjustable parameters that can be tuned as desired to balance the trade-off between the utilities of the three sides. We also derive hardness results that give clear upper bounds over the performance of any algorithm.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2022.
Builds on
13 of 58 references.
References · 13
- 2020FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platformscited by 78
- 2019Balancing the Tradeoff between Profit and Fairness in Rideshare Platforms During High-Demand Hourscited by 17
- 2017Allocation Problems in Ride-Sharing Platforms: Online Matching with Offline Reusable Resourcescited by 14
- 2020Group-level Fairness Maximization in Online Bipartite Matchingcited by 14
- 2018Fair-by-design matchingcited by 11
- 2021Matchings with Group Fairness Constraints: Online and Offline Algorithmscited by 8
- 2016Online Stochastic Matching: New Algorithms and Boundscited by 7
- 2018Balancing Relevance and Diversity in Online Bipartite Matching via Submodularitycited by 7
- 2020Trading the System Efficiency for the Income Equality of Drivers in Ridesharecited by 7
- 2020A Framework for Fairness in Two-Sided Marketplacescited by 6
- 2021Fairness Maximization among Offline Agents in Online-Matching Marketscited by 6
- 2021Subgroup Fairness in Two-Sided Marketscited by 3
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2025Online Fair Division with Additional Informationcited by 6
- 2023Fairness in Matching under Uncertaintycited by 5
- 2022Balancing Utility and Fairness in Submodular Maximization (Technical Report)cited by 2
- 2022Individual Fairness under Varied Notions of Group Fairness in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them Allcited by 0
- 2024Design a Win-Win Strategy That Is Fair to Both Service Providers and Tasks When Rejection Is Not an Optioncited by 0
- 2026Generalizing Fair Top-k Selection: An Integrative Approachcited by 0
- 2026Fair Online Resource Allocationcited by 0
- 2026Fair Online Resource Allocation17 Jun 2026
- 2026Generalizing Fair Top-k Selection: An Integrative Approach5 Mar 2026
- 2025Online Fair Division with Additional Information30 May 2025
- 2024Design a Win-Win Strategy That Is Fair to Both Service Providers and Tasks When Rejection Is Not an Option22 May 2024
- 2023Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty8 Feb 2023
- 2022Balancing Utility and Fairness in Submodular Maximization (Technical Report)2 Nov 2022
- 2022Individual Fairness under Varied Notions of Group Fairness in Bipartite Matching - One Framework to Approximate Them All21 Aug 2022