Abstract:Many organizations use algorithms that have a disparate impact, i.e., the benefits or harms of the algorithm fall disproportionately on certain social groups. Addressing an algorithm's disparate impact can be challenging, however, because it is often unclear whether it is possible to reduce this impact without sacrificing other objectives of the organization, such as accuracy or profit. Establishing the improvability of algorithms with respect to multiple criteria is of both conceptual and practical interest: in many settings, disparate impact that would otherwise be prohibited under US federal law is permissible if it is necessary to achieve a legitimate business interest. The question is how a policy-maker can formally substantiate, or refute, this "necessity" defense. In this paper, we provide an econometric framework for testing the hypothesis that it is possible to improve on the fairness of an algorithm without compromising on other pre-specified objectives. Our proposed test is simple to implement and can be applied under any exogenous constraint on the algorithm space. We establish the large-sample validity and consistency of our test, and illustrate its practical application by evaluating a healthcare algorithm originally considered by Obermeyer et al. (2019). In this application, we reject the null hypothesis that it is not possible to reduce the algorithm's disparate impact without compromising the accuracy of its predictions.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: How to reduce the disproportionate impact (i.e., disparate impact) of algorithms on different social groups without sacrificing other goals (such as accuracy or profit). Specifically, the authors provide an econometric framework to test whether the fairness of algorithms can be improved without affecting other preset goals. This problem has important conceptual and practical significance because in many cases, according to U.S. federal law, disparate impact may be permitted if it is necessary to achieve legitimate business interests. Therefore, policymakers need to be able to formally prove or refute this "necessity" defense. ### Summary of the Core Problems in the Paper 1. **Challenges of Disparate Impact**: - The algorithms used by many organizations can bring disproportionate benefits or harm to certain social groups (i.e., disparate impact). - Solving the disparate impact of algorithms is challenging because it is often unclear whether this impact can be reduced without sacrificing other goals (such as accuracy or profit). 2. **Verification of Improvement Possibility**: - Establishing the possibility of algorithm improvement under multiple criteria is of both conceptual importance and practical application value. - The authors provide a simple test method that can be applied to the algorithm space under any exogenous constraints to verify whether the fairness of algorithms can be improved without harming other goals. 3. **Legal Background**: - In many cases, according to U.S. federal law, disparate impact may be permitted if it is necessary to achieve legitimate business interests. - Therefore, policymakers need tools to determine when fairness conflicts with other goals and when there are alternative algorithms that simultaneously meet all specified criteria. ### Main Contributions of the Paper - Provide an econometric framework for testing whether the fairness of algorithms can be improved without harming other preset goals. - Demonstrate the application of this framework through practical cases (such as the healthcare algorithm studied by Obermeyer et al. in 2019) and reject the hypothesis that the disparate impact of algorithms cannot be reduced without harming prediction accuracy. ### Formulas and Definitions To understand these concepts more clearly, the following are some key formulas and definitions involved in the paper: - **Definitions of Accuracy and Fairness**: \[ U_g^A(a) = E_P[u_A(X, Y, a(X)) | G = g] \] \[ U_g^F(a) = E_P[u_F(X, Y, a(X)) | G = g] \] where \(u_A\) and \(u_F\) are the utility functions of accuracy and fairness respectively, and \(w_A\) and \(w_F\) are normalization functions. - **Definition of Improvement**: - **FA - dominance** (Full - dominance): \[ \text{If there exists } a_1\in A \text{ such that } \frac{U_r^A(a_1)}{U_r^A(a_0)}>1, \frac{U_b^A(a_1)}{U_b^A(a_0)}>1, \text{ and } \frac{|U_r^F(a_1)-U_b^F(a_1)|}{|U_r^F(a_0)-U_b^F(a_0)|}<1 \] - **δ - fairness improvability** (δ - fairness improvement): \[ \text{If there exists } a_1\in A \text{ such that } \frac{U_r^A(a_1)}{U_r^A(a_0)}>1, \frac{U_b^A(a_1)}{U_b^A(a_0)}>1, \text{ and } \frac{|U_r^F(a_1)-U_b^F(a_1)|}{|U_r^F(a_0)-U_b^F(a_0)|}<1 - \delta \] Through these formulas and definitions, the authors provide a solid theoretical basis and practical tool for evaluating the improvement of algorithm fairness and accuracy.

Testing the Fairness-Accuracy Improvability of Algorithms

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

Inference for an Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Evaluating Fairness Using Permutation Tests

Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks

A Psychometric Framework for Evaluating Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Differential Algorithmic Functioning

Fair Enough? A map of the current limitations of the requirements to have fair algorithms

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

Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law

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

Algorithm Design: A Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

Algorithmic Fairness with Feedback

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

Emergent Unfairness in Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Off Research

Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness

The Intersectionality Problem for Algorithmic Fairness

Fairness-aware Configuration of Machine Learning Libraries

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness

Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination