Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combination

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1906.00285 v2 pith:MUQAUUSC submitted 2019-06-01 stat.ML cs.LGmath.OC

classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.OC
keywords dataprotectedclassfairnessalgorithmicalgorithmsassessingdisparate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The increasing impact of algorithmic decisions on people's lives compels us to scrutinize their fairness and, in particular, the disparate impacts that ostensibly-color-blind algorithms can have on different groups. Examples include credit decisioning, hiring, advertising, criminal justice, personalized medicine, and targeted policymaking, where in some cases legislative or regulatory frameworks for fairness exist and define specific protected classes. In this paper we study a fundamental challenge to assessing disparate impacts in practice: protected class membership is often not observed in the data. This is particularly a problem in lending and healthcare. We consider the use of an auxiliary dataset, such as the US census, to construct models that predict the protected class from proxy variables, such as surname and geolocation. We show that even with such data, a variety of common disparity measures are generally unidentifiable, providing a new perspective on the documented biases of popular proxy-based methods. We provide exact characterizations of the tightest-possible set of all possible true disparities that are consistent with the data (and possibly any assumptions). We further provide optimization-based algorithms for computing and visualizing these sets and statistical tools to assess sampling uncertainty. Together, these enable reliable and robust assessments of disparities -- an important tool when disparity assessment can have far-reaching policy implications. We demonstrate this in two case studies with real data: mortgage lending and personalized medicine dosing.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mind the Gap: Optimal and Equitable Encouragement Policies

    cs.LG 2023-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Develops optimal encouragement policies distinguishing responsiveness from efficacy, targeting induced take-up for fairness under budget constraints in non-adherence settings.

Pith tools