Designing Equitable Algorithms
Alex Chohlas-Wood, Madison Coots, Sharad Goel, Julian Nyarko

TL;DR
This paper critically examines common fairness constraints in predictive algorithms, revealing they can worsen outcomes for marginalized groups and emphasizing the need for a broader understanding of algorithmic fairness.
Contribution
It demonstrates that standard fairness constraints may harm marginalized groups and proposes new considerations for designing equitable algorithms.
Findings
Fairness constraints can worsen outcomes for marginalized groups.
Trade-offs exist between fairness constraints and welfare improvements.
Recommendations for more equitable algorithm design.
Abstract
Predictive algorithms are now used to help distribute a large share of our society's resources and sanctions, such as healthcare, loans, criminal detentions, and tax audits. Under the right circumstances, these algorithms can improve the efficiency and equity of decision-making. At the same time, there is a danger that the algorithms themselves could entrench and exacerbate disparities, particularly along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. To help ensure their fairness, many researchers suggest that algorithms be subject to at least one of three constraints: (1) no use of legally protected features, such as race, ethnicity, and gender; (2) equal rates of "positive" decisions across groups; and (3) equal error rates across groups. Here we show that these constraints, while intuitively appealing, often worsen outcomes for individuals in marginalized groups, and can even leave all groups…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
