On Statistical Discrimination as a Failure of Social Learning: A Multiarmed Bandit Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze statistical discrimination in hiring markets using a multiarmed bandit model. Myopic firms face workers arriving with heterogeneous observable characteristics. The association between the worker’s skill and characteristics is unknown ex ante; thus, firms need to learn it. Laissez-faire causes perpetual underestimation: minority workers are rarely hired, and therefore, the underestimation tends to persist. Even a marginal imbalance in the population ratio frequently results in perpetual underestimation. We demonstrate that a subsidy rule that is implemented as temporary affirmative action effectively alleviates discrimination stemming from insufficient data. This paper was accepted by Nicolas Stier-Moses, Special Issue on the Human-Algorithm Connection. Funding: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant 430-2020-00088] and JST ERATO [Grant JPMJER2301], Japan. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.00893 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".