pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1903.01209 · v2 · submitted 2019-03-04 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learning

Authors on Pith no claims yet
classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords algorithmicfairnessimpactlong-termdecisiondecision-makingdifferentequality
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Most existing notions of algorithmic fairness are one-shot: they ensure some form of allocative equality at the time of decision making, but do not account for the adverse impact of the algorithmic decisions today on the long-term welfare and prosperity of certain segments of the population. We take a broader perspective on algorithmic fairness. We propose an effort-based measure of fairness and present a data-driven framework for characterizing the long-term impact of algorithmic policies on reshaping the underlying population. Motivated by the psychological literature on \emph{social learning} and the economic literature on equality of opportunity, we propose a micro-scale model of how individuals may respond to decision-making algorithms. We employ existing measures of segregation from sociology and economics to quantify the resulting macro-scale population-level change. Importantly, we observe that different models may shift the group-conditional distribution of qualifications in different directions. Our findings raise a number of important questions regarding the formalization of fairness for decision-making models.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Formalizing personalization as individual actionability in causal recourse shows hard constraints degrade validity and plausibility while revealing socio-demographic disparities in costs.