Allocation Requires Prediction Only if Inequality Is Low

Overview

• Algorithmic predictions are seen as a promising way to efficiently allocate societal resources
• However, the assumption that such systems are necessary to identify individuals for interventions is not always valid
• The paper proposes a framework for assessing this assumption using a mathematical model

Plain English Explanation

The paper examines the use of algorithmic predictions to allocate resources and identify individuals for interventions. Many organizations and governments believe that these types of predictive algorithms are necessary to efficiently distribute limited resources.

However, the researchers propose a framework to evaluate this underlying assumption. Using a simple mathematical model, they look at settings where individuals belong to larger units like hospitals, neighborhoods, or schools. The key finding is that prediction-based allocations only outperform simpler methods that use aggregate unit-level statistics when there is low inequality between the units and a high budget for interventions.

This suggests there may be limits to improving the effectiveness of interventions through the use of predictive algorithms alone, especially in real-world settings with constraints on resources and varied outcomes across different groups. The researchers highlight the need to critically examine the assumptions behind using machine learning for cost-effective resource allocation.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a mathematical framework to assess the efficacy of using algorithmic predictions to identify individuals for interventions. The researchers model a setting where individuals belong to larger units like hospitals, neighborhoods, or schools.

Using this model, they evaluate the performance of prediction-based allocations compared to baseline methods that only use aggregate unit-level statistics. The key finding is that prediction-based allocations outperform the baseline only when there is low inequality between the units and a high budget for interventions.

This result holds across a range of settings, including varying the price of prediction, the degree of treatment effect heterogeneity, and the learnability of the unit-level statistics.

Critical Analysis

The paper highlights important caveats and limitations in relying on predictive algorithms to efficiently allocate scarce resources. The researchers acknowledge that their model makes simplifying assumptions, and real-world settings may involve additional complexities.

One concern is that the model assumes the planner has full information about the underlying distributions, which may not always be the case in practice. Additionally, the analysis focuses on a static setting, while real-world resource allocation often involves dynamic, evolving conditions.

The paper also does not address potential issues of fairness and equity that can arise from relying on predictive algorithms to target interventions. This is an important area for further research and consideration.

Conclusion

This paper provides a rigorous, principled framework for assessing the assumption that predictive algorithms are necessary to efficiently allocate societal resources and identify individuals for interventions. The key insight is that the efficacy of such algorithms depends heavily on the specific context, including factors like inequality between groups and available intervention budgets.

The findings suggest there may be limits to improving the effectiveness of interventions through the use of predictive algorithms alone. This highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the assumptions and potential limitations of algorithmic decision-making systems, especially when they are used to make high-stakes decisions that can significantly impact people's lives.