Abstract:Now that machine learning algorithms lie at the center of many resource allocation pipelines, computer scientists have been unwittingly cast as partial social planners. Given this state of affairs, important questions follow. What is the relationship between fairness as defined by computer scientists and notions of social welfare? In this paper, we present a welfare-based analysis of classification and fairness regimes. We translate a loss minimization program into a social welfare maximization problem with a set of implied welfare weights on individuals and groups--weights that can be analyzed from a distribution justice lens. In the converse direction, we ask what the space of possible labelings is for a given dataset and hypothesis class. We provide an algorithm that answers this question with respect to linear hyperplanes in $\mathbb{R}^d$ that runs in $O(n^dd)$. Our main findings on the relationship between fairness criteria and welfare center on sensitivity analyses of fairness-constrained empirical risk minimization programs. We characterize the ranges of $\Delta \epsilon$ perturbations to a fairness parameter $\epsilon$ that yield better, worse, and neutral outcomes in utility for individuals and by extension, groups. We show that applying more strict fairness criteria that are codified as parity constraints, can worsen welfare outcomes for both groups. More generally, always preferring "more fair" classifiers does not abide by the Pareto Principle---a fundamental axiom of social choice theory and welfare economics. Recent work in machine learning has rallied around these notions of fairness as critical to ensuring that algorithmic systems do not have disparate negative impact on disadvantaged social groups. By showing that these constraints often fail to translate into improved outcomes for these groups, we cast doubt on their effectiveness as a means to ensure justice.

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

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

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Algorithmic Fairness with Feedback

Fair Classification and Social Welfare

Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination

Comparing Fairness Criteria Based on Social Outcome

Assessing Group Fairness with Social Welfare Optimization

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

Algorithmic Fairness: A Tolerance Perspective

Subjective fairness in algorithmic decision-support

Are algorithms always fair? The study on public preferences toward algorithmic decision‐making: A case study from the perspectives of decision scenarios and social roles

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

Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy

From Utilitarian to Rawlsian Designs for Algorithmic Fairness

An Introduction to Algorithmic Fairness

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

Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

Welfare and Distributional Impacts of Fair Classification

Towards Substantive Conceptions of Algorithmic Fairness: Normative Guidance from Equal Opportunity Doctrines

Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences