Abstract:The field of algorithmic fairness has rapidly emerged over the past 15 years as algorithms have become ubiquitous in everyday lives. Algorithmic fairness traditionally considers statistical notions of fairness algorithms might satisfy in decisions based on noisy data. We first show that these are theoretically disconnected from welfare-based notions of fairness. We then discuss two individual welfare-based notions of fairness, envy freeness and prejudice freeness, and establish conditions under which they are equivalent to error rate balance and predictive parity, respectively. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of the recently discovered impossibility theorem in algorithmic fairness (Kleinberg, Mullainathan, & Raghavan (2016), Chouldechova (2017)).

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is, in the field of Algorithmic Fairness, how to link statistical fairness with individual welfare, and explore how to evaluate fairness in the case of algorithmic endogeneity. Specifically, the paper focuses on two main aspects: 1. **The connection between statistical fairness and individual welfare**: Traditional research on algorithmic fairness mainly focuses on statistically - defined fairness criteria, such as error rate balance and predictive parity. These criteria often overlook an individual's welfare or utility. Therefore, the paper attempts to fill this gap and explore the relationship between these statistical criteria and individual welfare. 2. **Fairness evaluation under algorithmic endogeneity**: Algorithmic endogeneity means that the data processed by the algorithm is itself affected by the algorithm. In this case, evaluating the fairness of the algorithm becomes more complicated. The paper explores how to evaluate the fairness of the algorithm by considering an individual's choices and preferences in this environment. ### Main contributions - **Introduced two fairness concepts based on individual welfare**: - **Envy Freeness**: Ensure that no individual wishes to be a member of another group after being classified by the algorithm. - **Prejudice Freeness**: Ensure that no individual regrets their group affiliation after being classified by the algorithm. - **Established the relationship between Envy Freeness and statistical fairness**: - The paper proves that in binary classification problems, if an individual's preferences are independent of their group affiliation, then an algorithm that satisfies Envy Freeness must also satisfy error rate balance (Theorem 1). - Further, the paper shows that under the same conditions, Prejudice Freeness is equivalent to predictive parity (Theorem 2). ### Research background Taking the COMPAS algorithm as an example, the paper discusses the importance of algorithmic fairness in the criminal justice system. The COMPAS algorithm is used to assess the recidivism risk of defendants, but a study by ProPublica shows that black defendants are significantly more likely to be wrongly marked as high - risk than white defendants. This has sparked a wide - ranging discussion on algorithmic fairness, especially the question of whether the two fairness criteria of error rate balance and predictive parity can be satisfied simultaneously. ### Research methods - **Theoretical analysis**: The paper explores the relationships between different fairness criteria by constructing mathematical models and introduces two new fairness concepts, Envy Freeness and Prejudice Freeness. - **Empirical analysis**: Although the paper mainly focuses on theoretical analysis, it also mentions some examples in practical applications, such as the application of the COMPAS algorithm in the criminal justice system. ### Conclusion The main conclusion of the paper is that there is a theoretical gap between traditional statistical fairness criteria and individual welfare. By introducing the two concepts of Envy Freeness and Prejudice Freeness, the paper provides a new perspective for evaluating the fairness of algorithms, especially in the case of algorithmic endogeneity. These findings are of great significance for understanding the application of algorithms in social science research.

Algorithmic Fairness with Feedback

Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learning

An Introduction to Algorithmic Fairness

Algorithmic Fairness: A Tolerance Perspective

Fairness in Algorithmic Recourse Through the Lens of Substantive Equality of Opportunity

Testing the Fairness-Accuracy Improvability of Algorithms

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

Algorithmic Fairness in Education

On the Advantages of Distinguishing Between Predictive and Allocative Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making

How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness

Algorithmic bias and racial inequality: a critical review

Algorithm Design: A Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing

Fair and Unbiased Algorithmic Decision Making: Current State and Future Challenges

Measuring, Interpreting, and Improving Fairness of Algorithms using Causal Inference and Randomized Experiments

Algorithmic Challenges in Ensuring Fairness at the Time of Decision

Active Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making