IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2404.04424.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Annie Liang
  • Jay Lu

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 on ``veil 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?

Suggested Citation

  • Annie Liang & Jay Lu, 2024. "Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare," Papers 2404.04424, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.04424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.04424
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C45 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Neural Networks and Related Topics
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.04424. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.