Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Published 5 Apr 2024 in econ.TH and cs.GT | (2404.04424v1)

Abstract: Algorithms are increasingly used to guide high-stakes decisions about individuals. Consequently, substantial interest has developed around defining and measuring the fairness'' of these algorithms. These definitions of fair algorithms share two features: First, they prioritize the role of a pre-defined group identity (e.g., race or gender) by focusing on how the algorithm's impact differs systematically across groups. Second, they are statistical in nature; for example, comparing false positive rates, or assessing whether group identity is independent of the decision (where both are viewed as random variables). These notions are facially distinct from a social welfare approach to fairness, in particular one based onveil of ignorance'' thought experiments in which individuals choose how to structure society prior to the realization of their social identity. In this paper, we seek to understand and organize the relationship between these different approaches to fairness. Can the optimization criteria proposed in the algorithmic fairness literature also be motivated as the choices of someone from behind the veil of ignorance? If not, what properties distinguish either approach to fairness?

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (7)
  1. Dwork, Cynthia, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. “Fairness through awareness.” 214–226.
  2. Grant, Simon, Atsushi Kajii, Ben Polak, and Zvi Safra. 2010. “Generalized Utilitarianism and Harsanyi’s Impartial Observer Theorem.” Econometrica, 79: 1939–1971.
  3. Harsanyi, John. 1953. “Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking.” Journal of Political Economy, 61: 434–435.
  4. Harsanyi, John. 1955. “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment.” Journal of Political Economy, 63: 309–321.
  5. Kreps, D., and E. Porteus. 1978. “Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory.” Econometrica, 46(1): 185–200.
  6. Mitchell, Shira, Eric Potash, Solon Barocas, Alexander D’Amour, and Kristian Lum. 2021. “Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions.” Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8: 141–163.
  7. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Summary

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 3 likes about this paper.