The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the legal duty to search for less discriminatory algorithms, focusing on the challenges and limitations of bias mitigation in algorithmic decision-making systems.
- The key issues discussed include model multiplicity, the fundamental limits of fairness interventions, and the inherent tradeoffs between different fairness criteria.
- The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of algorithms in high-stakes domains like hiring, lending, and criminal justice.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the idea that companies and organizations using algorithms to make important decisions may have a legal duty to search for and use algorithms that are less discriminatory. This is a complex issue because algorithms can exhibit various forms of bias, and efforts to reduce one type of bias can inadvertently introduce other biases.
The paper discusses the concept of "model multiplicity," which means that there can be many different algorithms or models that could be used to solve the same problem, each with their own trade-offs in terms of accuracy, fairness, and other factors. This makes it challenging to determine which algorithm is the "least discriminatory" option.
The paper also explores the fundamental limits of fairness interventions, which are attempts to make algorithms more fair and unbiased. Even with these interventions, there are inherent tensions between different fairness criteria, such as ensuring equal outcomes for different groups versus ensuring that the decision-making process is equally fair for everyone.
Overall, the paper highlights the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by organizations that use algorithms in high-stakes decision-making, such as hiring, lending, and criminal justice. It suggests that simply using the "most accurate" algorithm may not be enough, and that companies may have a responsibility to actively search for and use algorithms that are as fair and unbiased as possible, even if that means sacrificing some accuracy.
Technical Explanation
The paper The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms explores the legal and ethical obligations of organizations that use algorithms in high-stakes decision-making. The authors argue that companies may have a duty to search for and use algorithms that are less discriminatory, even if that means sacrificing some accuracy.
One of the key concepts discussed is "model multiplicity," which refers to the fact that there can be many different algorithms or models that could be used to solve the same problem, each with their own trade-offs in terms of accuracy, fairness, and other factors. This makes it challenging to determine which algorithm is the "least discriminatory" option.
The paper also examines the fundamental limits of fairness interventions, which are attempts to make algorithms more fair and unbiased. The authors show that even with these interventions, there are inherent tensions between different fairness criteria, such as ensuring equal outcomes for different groups versus ensuring that the decision-making process is equally fair for everyone.
The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of algorithms in high-stakes domains like hiring, lending, and criminal justice. It highlights the potential for algorithms to perpetuate or even exacerbate existing societal biases, and suggests that companies may have a responsibility to actively search for and use algorithms that are as fair and unbiased as possible, even if that means sacrificing some accuracy.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important points about the challenges and limitations of bias mitigation in algorithmic decision-making systems. One of the key strengths of the research is its comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the legal and ethical issues involved.
However, the paper also acknowledges some limitations and areas for further research. For example, the authors note that their analysis is primarily focused on the United States context, and that the legal landscape may differ in other countries. Additionally, the paper does not provide a clear roadmap for how organizations can practically implement the recommendations, such as how to evaluate and compare the fairness of different algorithms.
Another potential concern is that the paper's emphasis on the legal duty to search for less discriminatory algorithms could be interpreted as placing an undue burden on organizations, particularly smaller entities or those with limited resources. It may be important to consider more practical and scalable solutions that can be adopted by a wider range of organizations.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion about the ethical and responsible use of algorithms in high-stakes decision-making. The authors' emphasis on the need for organizations to actively search for and use less discriminatory algorithms, even if it means sacrificing some accuracy, is an important consideration that deserves further exploration and debate.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the significant legal and ethical challenges surrounding the use of algorithms in high-stakes decision-making. It argues that organizations may have a duty to search for and use algorithms that are less discriminatory, even if that means sacrificing some accuracy.
The key issues discussed include model multiplicity, the fundamental limits of fairness interventions, and the inherent trade-offs between different fairness criteria. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of these complex topics, drawing attention to the need for a more nuanced and responsible approach to the deployment of algorithms in domains like hiring, lending, and criminal justice.
While the paper acknowledges some limitations and areas for further research, it makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate about the ethical use of algorithms. By underscoring the potential legal risks and moral obligations associated with algorithmic decision-making, the paper encourages organizations to carefully consider the societal impact of their technology choices and to prioritize fairness alongside other performance metrics.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms
Emily Black, Logan Koepke, Pauline Kim, Solon Barocas, Mingwei Hsu
Work in computer science has established that, contrary to conventional wisdom, for a given prediction problem there are almost always multiple possible models with equivalent performance--a phenomenon often termed model multiplicity. Critically, different models of equivalent performance can produce different predictions for the same individual, and, in aggregate, exhibit different levels of impacts across demographic groups. Thus, when an algorithmic system displays a disparate impact, model multiplicity suggests that developers could discover an alternative model that performs equally well, but has less discriminatory impact. Indeed, the promise of model multiplicity is that an equally accurate, but less discriminatory algorithm (LDA) almost always exists. But without dedicated exploration, it is unlikely developers will discover potential LDAs. Model multiplicity and the availability of LDAs have significant ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms, in particular for disparate impact doctrine, which has long taken into account the availability of alternatives with less disparate effect when assessing liability. A close reading of legal authorities over the decades reveals that the law has on numerous occasions recognized that the existence of a less discriminatory alternative is sometimes relevant to a defendant's burden of justification at the second step of disparate impact analysis. Indeed, under disparate impact doctrine, it makes little sense to say that a given algorithmic system used by an employer, creditor, or housing provider is necessary if an equally accurate model that exhibits less disparate effect is available and possible to discover with reasonable effort. As a result, we argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.
Read more6/12/2024
0
The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity
Prakhar Ganesh, Ihsan Ibrahim Daldaban, Ignacio Cofone, Golnoosh Farnadi
Model multiplicity, the phenomenon where multiple models achieve similar performance despite different underlying learned functions, introduces arbitrariness in model selection. While this arbitrariness may seem inconsequential in expectation, its impact on individuals can be severe. This paper explores various individual concerns stemming from multiplicity, including the effects of arbitrariness beyond final predictions, disparate arbitrariness for individuals belonging to protected groups, and the challenges associated with the arbitrariness of a single algorithmic system creating a monopoly across various contexts. It provides both an empirical examination of these concerns and a comprehensive analysis from the legal standpoint, addressing how these issues are perceived in the anti-discrimination law in Canada. We conclude the discussion with technical challenges in the current landscape of model multiplicity to meet legal requirements and the legal gap between current law and the implications of arbitrariness in model selection, highlighting relevant future research directions for both disciplines.
Read more9/16/2024
👁️
0
Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions
Hao Wang, Luxi He, Rui Gao, Flavio P. Calmon
Machine learning (ML) models can underperform on certain population groups due to choices made during model development and bias inherent in the data. We categorize sources of discrimination in the ML pipeline into two classes: aleatoric discrimination, which is inherent in the data distribution, and epistemic discrimination, which is due to decisions made during model development. We quantify aleatoric discrimination by determining the performance limits of a model under fairness constraints, assuming perfect knowledge of the data distribution. We demonstrate how to characterize aleatoric discrimination by applying Blackwell's results on comparing statistical experiments. We then quantify epistemic discrimination as the gap between a model's accuracy when fairness constraints are applied and the limit posed by aleatoric discrimination. We apply this approach to benchmark existing fairness interventions and investigate fairness risks in data with missing values. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art fairness interventions are effective at removing epistemic discrimination on standard (overused) tabular datasets. However, when data has missing values, there is still significant room for improvement in handling aleatoric discrimination.
Read more4/17/2024
📈
0
Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity
Kacper Sokol, Meelis Kull, Jeffrey Chan, Flora Salim
While data-driven predictive models are a strictly technological construct, they may operate within a social context in which benign engineering choices entail implicit, indirect and unexpected real-life consequences. Fairness of such systems -- pertaining both to individuals and groups -- is one relevant consideration in this space; algorithms can discriminate people across various protected characteristics regardless of whether these properties are included in the data or discernible through proxy variables. To date, this notion has predominantly been studied for a fixed model, often under different classification thresholds, striving to identify and eradicate undesirable, discriminative and possibly unlawful aspects of its operation. Here, we backtrack on this fixed model assumption to propose and explore a novel definition of cross-model fairness where individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models, i.e., in view of utility-based model multiplicity. Since a person may be classified differently across models that are otherwise considered equivalent, this individual could argue for a predictor granting them the most favourable outcome, employing which may have adverse effects on other people. We introduce this scenario with a two-dimensional example and linear classification; then, we present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-life predictive models and data sets that are popular with the algorithmic fairness community; finally, we investigate analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its ramifications in a broader context. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone as doing so is likely to degrade predictive performance.
Read more7/11/2024