Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Tom Sühr

dblp:241/9574 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0003-1751-0691ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational finance and economics · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational finance and economics
market design
0.412019
Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform · KDD 2019
Computational finance and economics › platform economics
sharing economy
0.412019
Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform · KDD 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

repeated matching · 0.8fairness metrics · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Fair Top-k Ranking with multiple protected groups
Meike Zehlike, Tom Sühr, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo 0001, Sara Hajian
Inf. Process. Manag.2
2021 Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiring
abstract
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.
Tom Sühr, Sophie Hilgard, Himabindu Lakkaraju
AIES1
2019 Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform
abstract
Ride hailing platforms, such as Uber, Lyft, Ola or DiDi, have traditionally focused on the satisfaction of the passengers, or on boosting successful business transactions. However, recent studies provide a multitude of reasons to worry about the drivers in the ride hailing ecosystem. The concerns range from bad working conditions and worker manipulation to discrimination against minorities. With the sharing economy ecosystem growing, more and more drivers financially depend on online platforms and their algorithms to secure a living. It is pertinent to ask what a fair distribution of income on such platforms is and what power and means the platform has in shaping these distributions.
Tom Sühr, Asia J. Biega, Meike Zehlike, Krishna P. Gummadi, Abhijnan Chakraborty
KDD1