Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Less Discriminatory Algorithms
View through CrossRef
Entities that use algorithmic systems in traditional civil rights domains like housing, employment, and credit should have a duty to search for and implement less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs). Why? Work in computer science has established that, contrary to conventional wisdom, for a given prediction problem there are almost always multiple possible models with equivalent performance—a phenomenon termed model multiplicity. Critically for our purposes, different models of equivalent performance can produce different predictions for the same individual, and, in aggregate, exhibit different levels of impacts across demographic groups. As a result, when an algorithmic system displays a disparate impact, model multiplicity suggests that developers may be able to discover an alternative model that performs equally well, but has less discriminatory impact. Indeed, the promise of model multiplicity is that an equally accurate, but less discriminatory alternative algorithm almost always exists. But without dedicated exploration, it is unlikely developers will discover potential LDAs. <br><br>Model multiplicity has profound ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms. Under disparate impact doctrine, it makes little sense to say that a given algorithmic system used by an employer, creditor, or housing provider is either “justified” or “necessary” if an equally accurate model that exhibits less disparate effect is available and possible to discover with reasonable effort. Indeed, the overarching purpose of our civil rights laws is to remove precisely these arbitrary barriers to full participation in the nation’s economic life, particularly for marginalized racial groups. As a result, the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains. The law should recognize this duty in at least two specific ways. First, under disparate impact doctrine, a defendant’s burden of justifying a model with discriminatory effects should be recognized to include showing that it made a reasonable search for LDAs before implementing the model. Second, new regulatory frameworks for the governance of algorithms should include a requirement that entities search for and implement LDAs as part of the model building process.
Title: Less Discriminatory Algorithms
Description:
Entities that use algorithmic systems in traditional civil rights domains like housing, employment, and credit should have a duty to search for and implement less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs).
Why? Work in computer science has established that, contrary to conventional wisdom, for a given prediction problem there are almost always multiple possible models with equivalent performance—a phenomenon termed model multiplicity.
Critically for our purposes, different models of equivalent performance can produce different predictions for the same individual, and, in aggregate, exhibit different levels of impacts across demographic groups.
As a result, when an algorithmic system displays a disparate impact, model multiplicity suggests that developers may be able to discover an alternative model that performs equally well, but has less discriminatory impact.
Indeed, the promise of model multiplicity is that an equally accurate, but less discriminatory alternative algorithm almost always exists.
But without dedicated exploration, it is unlikely developers will discover potential LDAs.
<br><br>Model multiplicity has profound ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms.
Under disparate impact doctrine, it makes little sense to say that a given algorithmic system used by an employer, creditor, or housing provider is either “justified” or “necessary” if an equally accurate model that exhibits less disparate effect is available and possible to discover with reasonable effort.
Indeed, the overarching purpose of our civil rights laws is to remove precisely these arbitrary barriers to full participation in the nation’s economic life, particularly for marginalized racial groups.
As a result, the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.
The law should recognize this duty in at least two specific ways.
First, under disparate impact doctrine, a defendant’s burden of justifying a model with discriminatory effects should be recognized to include showing that it made a reasonable search for LDAs before implementing the model.
Second, new regulatory frameworks for the governance of algorithms should include a requirement that entities search for and implement LDAs as part of the model building process.
Related Results
Conditions for Overcoming Discriminatory Affirmations in Modern Society
Conditions for Overcoming Discriminatory Affirmations in Modern Society
The relevance of the study is conditioned by the necessity for formation of theoretical and practical knowledge and technologies that allow to analyze the conditions for overcoming...
Perceptions of lecturers and students regarding discriminatory experiences and sexual harassment in Academic Medicine – Results from a faculty-wide quantitative study
Perceptions of lecturers and students regarding discriminatory experiences and sexual harassment in Academic Medicine – Results from a faculty-wide quantitative study
Abstract
Background
Discrimination and sexual harassment are prevalent in higher education institutions and can affect students, faculty members and employees. Herein the ...
Comparative Analysis of Classical and Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms in Breast Cancer Classification
Comparative Analysis of Classical and Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms in Breast Cancer Classification
Abstract
This study presents a comparison between classical machine learning (ML) algorithms and their quantum-enhanced counterparts in classifying scikit’s breast ...
Integrating quantum neural networks with machine learning algorithms for optimizing healthcare diagnostics and treatment outcomes
Integrating quantum neural networks with machine learning algorithms for optimizing healthcare diagnostics and treatment outcomes
The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing have catalyzed an unprecedented shift in the methodologies utilized for healthcare diagnostics and trea...
Assessment of Chlorophyll-a Algorithms Considering Different Trophic Statuses and Optimal Bands
Assessment of Chlorophyll-a Algorithms Considering Different Trophic Statuses and Optimal Bands
Numerous algorithms have been proposed to retrieve chlorophyll-a concentrations in Case 2 waters; however, the retrieval accuracy is far from satisfactory. In this research, seven ...
A comprehensive review of post-quantum cryptography: Challenges and advances
A comprehensive review of post-quantum cryptography: Challenges and advances
One of the most crucial measures to maintain data security is the use of cryptography schemes and digital signatures built upon cryptographic algorithms. The resistance of cryptogr...
Modeling Hybrid Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithm for Convergence Prediction
Modeling Hybrid Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithm for Convergence Prediction
The project aims at the design and development of six hybrid nature inspired algorithms based on Grey Wolf Optimization algorithm with Artificial Bee Colony Optimization algorithm ...
Modeling Hybrid Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithm for Convergence Prediction
Modeling Hybrid Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithm for Convergence Prediction
The project aims at the design and development of six hybrid nature inspired algorithms based on Grey Wolf Optimization algorithm with Artificial Bee Colony Optimization algorithm ...

