2000 character limit reached
Algorithms, Incentives, and Democracy (2307.02319v1)
Published 5 Jul 2023 in econ.TH, stat.AP, and stat.ML
Abstract: Classification algorithms are increasingly used in areas such as housing, credit, and law enforcement in order to make decisions affecting peoples' lives. These algorithms can change individual behavior deliberately (a fraud prediction algorithm deterring fraud) or inadvertently (content sorting algorithms spreading misinformation), and they are increasingly facing public scrutiny and regulation. Some of these regulations, like the elimination of cash bail in some states, have focused on \textit{lowering the stakes of certain classifications}. In this paper we characterize how optimal classification by an algorithm designer can affect the distribution of behavior in a population -- sometimes in surprising ways. We then look at the effect of democratizing the rewards and punishments, or stakes, to algorithmic classification to consider how a society can potentially stem (or facilitate!) predatory classification. Our results speak to questions of algorithmic fairness in settings where behavior and algorithms are interdependent, and where typical measures of fairness focusing on statistical accuracy across groups may not be appropriate.
- Alexander, Dan. 2023. “Incentives or Disincentives?” Forthcoming, Journal of Politics.
- “Machine Bias.” ProPublica, May 23(2016):139–159.
- “Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art.” Sociological Methods & Research p. 0049124118782533.
- Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy 56(1):23–34.
- Chouldechova, Alexandra. 2017. “Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments.” Big Data 5(2):153–163.
- Chouldechova, Alexandra and Aaron Roth. 2020. “A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning.” Communications of the ACM 63(5):82–89.
- Coate, Stephen and Glenn C Loury. 1993. “Will Affirmative-action Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes?” The American Economic Review pp. 1220–1240.
- Corbett-Davies, Sam and Sharad Goel. 2018. “The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023 .
- Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. pp. 214–226.
- Fang, Hanming and Andrea Moro. 2011. “Theories of statistical discrimination and affirmative action: A survey.” Handbook of social economics 1:133–200.
- Foggo, Virginia and John Villasenor. 2021. “Algorithms, Housing Discrimination, and the New Disparate Impact Rule.” Science and Technology Law Review 22(1):1–62.
- Frankel, Alex and Navin Kartik. 2022. “Improving Information from Manipulable Data.” Journal of the European Economic Association 20(1):79–115.
- Fryer Jr, Roland G. 2007. “Belief Flipping in a Dynamic Model of Statistical Discrimination.” Journal of Public Economics 91(5-6):1151–1166.
- Gailmard, Sean. 2014. Accountability and Principal-Agent Theory. In Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, ed. Mark Bovens, Robert Goodin and Thomas Schillemans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press pp. 90–105.
- Strategic Classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on innovations in theoretical computer science. pp. 111–122.
- “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(1):237–293.
- Algorithmic Fairness. In AEA Papers and Proceedings. Vol. 108 American Economic Association pp. 22–27.
- Kleinberg, Jon and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretability. Technical report National Bureau of Economic Research.
- “Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 .
- “Counterfactual Fairness.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06856 .
- Ladd, Helen F. 1998. “Evidence on Discrimination in Mortgage Lending.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):41–62.
- Lang, Kevin and Ariella Kahn-Lang Spitzer. 2020. “Race Discrimination: An Economic Perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 34(2):68–89.
- Using Machine Learning in Admissions: Reducing Human and Algorithmic Bias in the Selection Process. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp. 1323–1323.
- Meltzer, Allan H and Scott F Richard. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 89(5):914–927.
- Miller, Alex P and Kartik Hosanagar. 2019. “How Targeted Ads and Dynamic Pricing Can Perpetuate Bias.” Harvard Business Review .
- “Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions.” Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 8:141–163.
- “Mortgage lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA data.” The American Economic Review pp. 25–53.
- Narayanan, Arvind. 2018. Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics. In Proc. Conf. Fairness Accountability Transp., New York, USA. Vol. 1170.
- Patty, John W. 2008. “Equilibrium Party Government.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3):636–655.
- Patty, John W and Elizabeth Maggie Penn. 2023a. “Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination.” Philosophy Compass 18(1).
- Patty, John W. and Elizabeth Maggie Penn. 2023b. “Algorithmic Fairness with Feedback.” Working Paper, Emory University.
- Patty, John W. and Elizabeth Maggie Penn. 2023c. “Ban The Box? Information, Incentives, and Statistical Discrimination.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science Forthcoming.
- Patty, John W. and Elizabeth Maggie Penn. 2023d. “Perfect Prediction Can Be Suboptimal: Algorithms, Endogeneity, and Opting Out.” Journal of Theoretical Politics Forthcoming.
- Performative Prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR pp. 7599–7609.
- “Average individual fairness: Algorithms, generalization and experiments.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32:8242–8251.
- Washington, Anne L. 2018. “How to Argue with an Algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica Debate.” Colo. Tech. LJ 17:131.