Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach To Equal Opportunity

Read original: arXiv:2305.08157 - Published 5/16/2024 by Shomik Jain, Vinith Suriyakumar, Kathleen Creel, Ashia Wilson

⚙️

Overview

The paper proposes a structural approach called "algorithmic pluralism" to achieve equal opportunity in systems of algorithmic decision-making.
Algorithmic pluralism aims to ensure that no set of algorithms severely limits access to opportunities, allowing individuals to pursue diverse life paths.
The authors adopt Joseph Fishkin's theory of "bottlenecks" to reframe concerns about equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making, such as patterned inequality and algorithmic monoculture.
The paper argues for the urgent need to alleviate severe bottlenecks in algorithmic decision-making to promote systemic equal opportunity.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses a new approach called "algorithmic pluralism" to address issues of equal opportunity in systems that use algorithms to make decisions. Algorithmic fairness: a tolerance perspective and Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: A multidisciplinary survey have previously explored challenges around fairness and bias in algorithmic decision-making.

The core idea behind algorithmic pluralism is that there should be a diversity of algorithms used, rather than relying on a single set of algorithms that could severely limit people's access to opportunities. The authors use the concept of "bottlenecks" from Joseph Fishkin's work, which refers to decision points that control access to opportunities. The paper argues that we need to identify and address the severe bottlenecks in algorithmic decision-making systems to promote equal opportunity.

For example, in the context of hiring, a single algorithm used to screen job applicants could act as a severe bottleneck, restricting many people's access to job opportunities. Algorithmic pluralism suggests using a variety of algorithms or decision-making approaches to provide more pathways to employment.

Overall, the paper calls for a structural, systemic approach to ensuring equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making, rather than focusing solely on individual-level fairness interventions. The authors believe this will lead to a more just and equitable society.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a structural approach called "algorithmic pluralism" to address issues of equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making systems. The authors adopt Joseph Fishkin's theory of "bottlenecks" to reframe existing concerns about equal opportunity, such as patterned inequality and algorithmic monoculture.

Fishkin's theory of bottlenecks focuses on the structure of decision-points that determine how opportunities are allocated. Each decision-point or bottleneck limits access to opportunities with some degree of severity and legitimacy. The authors extend this structural viewpoint and use it to analyze challenges in algorithmic decision-making systems.

The key argument of the paper is that there must be a pluralism of opportunity available to many different individuals in order to promote equal opportunity in a systemic way. Algorithmic pluralism describes a state of affairs where no set of algorithms severely limits access to opportunity, allowing individuals the freedom to pursue a diverse range of life paths.

The paper discusses the implications of this framework for system design and regulation, particularly in the context of algorithmic hiring. The authors contend that alleviating severe bottlenecks in algorithmic decision-making should be an urgent priority to promote equal opportunity.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a novel and thought-provoking perspective on addressing issues of equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making systems. By adopting Fishkin's theory of bottlenecks, the authors offer a structural approach that complements individual-level fairness interventions discussed in Fairness and bias in algorithmic hiring: A multidisciplinary survey.

However, the paper does not delve deeply into the practical implementation challenges of achieving algorithmic pluralism. Questions remain about how to identify and address severe bottlenecks in complex, real-world algorithmic systems, especially when multiple algorithms may be interacting in intricate ways. Towards a systems theory of algorithms could provide valuable insights in this regard.

Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential tensions or tradeoffs between algorithmic pluralism and other desirable system properties, such as efficiency, consistency, or scalability. The value kaleidoscope: Engaging with AI's multifaceted ethical challenges highlights the need to navigate such value pluralism in AI system design.

Further research could investigate practical strategies for implementing algorithmic pluralism, as well as empirical studies to assess its impacts on equal opportunity outcomes. Exploring the interplay between structural and individual-level approaches to fairness in algorithmic decision-making systems could also be a fruitful area for future work.

Conclusion

The paper proposes a structural approach called "algorithmic pluralism" to address issues of equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making systems. By adopting Fishkin's theory of bottlenecks, the authors argue for the urgent need to alleviate severe bottlenecks that limit access to opportunities, promoting a pluralism of available pathways.

This framework offers a new perspective on systemic concerns around equal opportunity, complementing individual-level fairness interventions. While the paper provides a compelling theoretical basis, further research is needed to explore the practical implementation challenges and potential tradeoffs involved in achieving algorithmic pluralism. Nonetheless, the authors' call for a structural approach to ensuring equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making systems is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate in this important field.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

⚙️

Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach To Equal Opportunity

Shomik Jain, Vinith Suriyakumar, Kathleen Creel, Ashia Wilson

We present a structural approach toward achieving equal opportunity in systems of algorithmic decision-making called algorithmic pluralism. Algorithmic pluralism describes a state of affairs in which no set of algorithms severely limits access to opportunity, allowing individuals the freedom to pursue a diverse range of life paths. To argue for algorithmic pluralism, we adopt Joseph Fishkin's theory of bottlenecks, which focuses on the structure of decision-points that determine how opportunities are allocated. The theory contends that each decision-point or bottleneck limits access to opportunities with some degree of severity and legitimacy. We extend Fishkin's structural viewpoint and use it to reframe existing systemic concerns about equal opportunity in algorithmic decision-making, such as patterned inequality and algorithmic monoculture. In proposing algorithmic pluralism, we argue for the urgent priority of alleviating severe bottlenecks in algorithmic decision-making. We contend that there must be a pluralism of opportunity available to many different individuals in order to promote equal opportunity in a systemic way. We further show how this framework has several implications for system design and regulation through current debates about equal opportunity in algorithmic hiring.

5/16/2024

Why Algorithms Remain Unjust: Power Structures Surrounding Algorithmic Activity

Andrew Balch

Algorithms play an increasingly-significant role in our social lives. Unfortunately, they often perpetuate social injustices while doing so. The popular means of addressing these algorithmic injustices has been through algorithmic reformism: fine-tuning the algorithm itself to be more fair, accountable, and transparent. While commendable, the emerging discipline of critical algorithm studies shows that reformist approaches have failed to curtail algorithmic injustice because they ignore the power structure surrounding algorithms. Heeding calls from critical algorithm studies to analyze this power structure, I employ a framework developed by Erik Olin Wright to examine the configuration of power surrounding Algorithmic Activity: the ways in which algorithms are researched, developed, trained, and deployed within society. I argue that the reason Algorithmic Activity is unequal, undemocratic, and unsustainable is that the power structure shaping it is one of economic empowerment rather than social empowerment. For Algorithmic Activity to be socially just, we need to transform this power configuration to empower the people at the other end of an algorithm. To this end, I explore Wright's symbiotic, interstitial, and raptural transformations in the context of Algorithmic Activity, as well as how they may be applied in a hypothetical research project that uses algorithms to address a social issue. I conclude with my vision for socially just Algorithmic Activity, asking that future work strives to integrate the proposed transformations and develop new mechanisms for social empowerment.

5/30/2024

A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment

Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christopher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Tim Althoff, Yejin Choi

With increased power and prevalence of AI systems, it is ever more critical that AI systems are designed to serve all, i.e., people with diverse values and perspectives. However, aligning models to serve pluralistic human values remains an open research question. In this piece, we propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formalize three possible ways to define and operationalize pluralism in AI systems: 1) Overton pluralistic models that present a spectrum of reasonable responses; 2) Steerably pluralistic models that can steer to reflect certain perspectives; and 3) Distributionally pluralistic models that are well-calibrated to a given population in distribution. We also formalize and discuss three possible classes of pluralistic benchmarks: 1) Multi-objective benchmarks, 2) Trade-off steerable benchmarks, which incentivize models to steer to arbitrary trade-offs, and 3) Jury-pluralistic benchmarks which explicitly model diverse human ratings. We use this framework to argue that current alignment techniques may be fundamentally limited for pluralistic AI; indeed, we highlight empirical evidence, both from our own experiments and from other work, that standard alignment procedures might reduce distributional pluralism in models, motivating the need for further research on pluralistic alignment.

8/22/2024

Structural Interventions and the Dynamics of Inequality

Aurora Zhang, Annette Hosoi

Recent conversations in the algorithmic fairness literature have raised several concerns with standard conceptions of fairness. First, constraining predictive algorithms to satisfy fairness benchmarks may lead to non-optimal outcomes for disadvantaged groups. Second, technical interventions are often ineffective by themselves, especially when divorced from an understanding of structural processes that generate social inequality. Inspired by both these critiques, we construct a common decision-making model, using mortgage loans as a running example. We show that under some conditions, any choice of decision threshold will inevitably perpetuate existing disparities in financial stability unless one deviates from the Pareto optimal policy. Then, we model the effects of three different types of interventions. We show how different interventions are recommended depending upon the difficulty of enacting structural change upon external parameters and depending upon the policymaker's preferences for equity or efficiency. Counterintuitively, we demonstrate that preferences for efficiency over equity may lead to recommendations for interventions that target the under-resourced group. Finally, we simulate the effects of interventions on a dataset that combines HMDA and Fannie Mae loan data. This research highlights the ways that structural inequality can be perpetuated by seemingly unbiased decision mechanisms, and it shows that in many situations, technical solutions must be paired with external, context-aware interventions to enact social change.

6/4/2024