Abstract:In our current society, secret algorithms make important decisions about individuals. There has been substantial discussion about whether these algorithms are unfair to groups of individuals. While noble, this pursuit is complex and ultimately stagnating because there is no clear definition of fairness and competing definitions are largely incompatible. We argue that the focus on the question of fairness is misplaced, as these algorithms fail to meet a more important and yet readily obtainable goal: transparency. As a result, creators of secret algorithms can provide incomplete or misleading descriptions about how their models work, and various other kinds of errors can easily go unnoticed. By partially reverse engineering the COMPAS algorithm -- a recidivism-risk scoring algorithm used throughout the criminal justice system -- we show that it does not seem to depend linearly on the defendant's age, despite statements to the contrary by the algorithm's creator. Furthermore, by subtracting from COMPAS its (hypothesized) nonlinear age component, we show that COMPAS does not necessarily depend on race, contradicting ProPublica's analysis, which assumed linearity in age. In other words, faulty assumptions about a proprietary algorithm lead to faulty conclusions that go unchecked without careful reverse engineering. Were the algorithm transparent in the first place, this would likely not have occurred. The most important result in this work is that we find that there are many defendants with low risk score but long criminal histories, suggesting that data inconsistencies occur frequently in criminal justice databases. We argue that transparency satisfies a different notion of procedural fairness by providing both the defendants and the public with the opportunity to scrutinize the methodology and calculations behind risk scores for recidivism.

Improving Fairness in Criminal Justice Algorithmic Risk Assessments Using Conformal Prediction Sets

Improving Fairness in Criminal Justice Algorithmic Risk Assessments Using Optimal Transport and Conformal Prediction Sets

Almost Politically Acceptable Criminal Justice Risk Assessment

Accuracy and Fairness for Juvenile Justice Risk Assessments

A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms

Fairness in Risk Assessment Instruments: Post-Processing to Achieve Counterfactual Equalized Odds

Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness

Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment

Fairness Deconstructed: A Sociotechnical View of 'Fair' Algorithms in Criminal Justice

Achieving Fairness through Adversarial Learning: an Application to Recidivism Prediction

On (assessing) the fairness of risk score models

Algorithmic Bias in Recidivism Prediction: A Causal Perspective

The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction

Enhancing Algorithmic Fairness: Integrative Approaches and Multi-Objective Optimization Application in Recidivism Models.

Uncertainty in Criminal Justice Algorithms: simulation studies of the Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool

Conformal Prediction Sets Can Cause Disparate Impact

Forks Over Knives: Predictive Inconsistency in Criminal Justice Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

The Progression of Disparities within the Criminal Justice System: Differential Enforcement and Risk Assessment Instruments

Feedback Effects in Repeat-Use Criminal Risk Assessments