Abstract:Can machine learning improve human decision making? Bail decisions provide a good test case. Millions of times each year, judges make jail-or-release decisions that hinge on a prediction of what a defendant would do if released. The concreteness of the prediction task combined with the volume of data available makes this a promising machine-learning application. Yet comparing the algorithm to judges proves complicated. First, the available data are generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the variable the algorithm predicts; for instance, judges may care specifically about violent crimes or about racial inequities. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: one policy simulation shows crime reductions up to 24.7% with no change in jailing rates, or jailing rate reductions up to 41.9% with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, all categories of crime, including violent crimes, show reductions; and these gains can be achieved while simultaneously reducing racial disparities. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. JEL Codes: C10 (Econometric and statistical methods and methodology), C55 (Large datasets: Modeling and analysis), K40 (Legal procedure, the legal system, and illegal behavior).

Interpreting Criminal Charge Prediction and Its Algorithmic Bias via Quantum-Inspired Complex Valued Networks

DeepOffense: a Recurrent Network Based Approach for Crime Prediction

Improving the Fairness of Deep-Learning, Short-term Crime Prediction with Under-reporting-aware Models

In Pursuit of Interpretable, Fair and Accurate Machine Learning for Criminal Recidivism Prediction

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

A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms

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

Reducing race-based bias and increasing recidivism prediction accuracy by using past criminal history details

An algorithm for removing sensitive information: application to race-independent recidivism prediction

Interpretable machine learning models for crime prediction

HUMAN DECISIONS AND MACHINE PREDICTIONS

Deep Learning Based Crime Prediction Models: Experiments and Analysis

Event-level prediction of urban crime reveals a signature of enforcement bias in US cities

Predicting human-generated bitstreams using classical and quantum models

Creating Auxiliary Representations from Charge Definitions for Criminal Charge Prediction

Exploring Transfer Learning for Crime Prediction

Detecting and Reducing Bias in a High Stakes Domain

Algorithmic Decision Making in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding

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

Crime Prediction Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Systematic Review and Future Directions

Can nonexperts really emulate statistical learning methods? A comment on “The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism”