A Simulation Based Dynamic Evaluation Framework for System-wide Algorithmic Fairness

We propose the use of Agent Based Models (ABMs) inside a reinforcement learning framework in order to better understand the relationship between automated decision making tools, fairness-inspired statistical constraints, and the social phenomena giving rise to discrimination towards sensitive groups. There have been many instances of discrimination occurring due to the applications of algorithmic tools by public and private institutions. Until recently, these practices have mostly gone unchecked. Given the large-scale transformation these new technologies elicit, a joint effort of social sciences and machine learning researchers is necessary. Much of the research has been done on determining statistical properties of such algorithms and the data they are trained on. We aim to complement that approach by studying the social dynamics in which these algorithms are implemented. We show how bias can be accumulated and reinforced through automated decision making, and the possibility of finding a fairness inducing policy. We focus on the case of recidivism risk assessment by considering simplified models of arrest. We find that if we limit our attention to what is observed and manipulated by these algorithmic tools, we may determine some blatantly unfair practices as fair, illustrating the advantage of analyzing the otherwise elusive property with a system-wide model. We expect the introduction of agent based simulation techniques will strengthen collaboration with social scientists, arriving at a better understanding of the social systems affected by technology and to hopefully lead to concrete policy proposals that can be presented to policymakers for a true systemic transformation.

[1]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Statistical Procedures for Forecasting Criminal Behavior , 2013 .

[2]  Apurv Jain Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Business Economics.

[3]  M. Macy,et al.  Social dynamics from the bottom up: Agent-based models of social interaction , 2009 .

[4]  William Rand,et al.  An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo , 2015 .

[5]  M. Kearns,et al.  Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art , 2017, Sociological Methods & Research.

[6]  M. Batty Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling , 2008 .

[7]  Michael P. Brown,et al.  The Sentencing Project , 2015 .

[8]  Paul S. Heaton,et al.  How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make? The Effect of Defense Counsel on Murder Case Outcomes , 2011 .

[9]  Hannah Lebovits Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018, Public Integrity.

[10]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[11]  J. Pearl Causal inference in statistics: An overview , 2009 .

[12]  Thomas C. Schelling,et al.  Dynamic models of segregation , 1971 .

[13]  Silvia Federici,et al.  Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation , 2004 .

[14]  Mary Jo Maynes,et al.  The Family: A World History , 2012 .

[15]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  Decision making with limited feedback , 2018, ALT.

[16]  Victor Hugo,et al.  Les misérables [1] , .

[17]  K. Lum,et al.  To predict and serve? , 2016 .

[18]  Sandro Galea,et al.  Formalizing the role of agent-based modeling in causal inference and epidemiology. , 2015, American journal of epidemiology.

[19]  M. Macy,et al.  FROM FACTORS TO ACTORS: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Modeling , 2002 .

[20]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms , 2017 .

[21]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to "Machine Bias: There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. and It's Biased against Blacks" , 2016 .

[22]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing , 2017, FAT.

[23]  P. Manning The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement , 2019, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews.

[24]  Ray J. Solomonoff,et al.  A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference. Part I , 1964, Inf. Control..

[25]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning , 2018, FAT.

[26]  T. Schelling Models of Segregation , 1969 .

[27]  Cathy O'Neil,et al.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2016, Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers.

[28]  Hazhir Rahmandad,et al.  Heterogeneity and Network Structure in the Dynamics of Diffusion: Comparing Agent-Based and Differential Equation Models , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Ray J. Solomonoff,et al.  A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference. Part II , 1964, Inf. Control..

[30]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Overview of: “Statistical Procedures for Forecasting Criminal Behavior: A Comparative Assessment” , 2013 .

[31]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments , 2016, Big Data.

[32]  Cory Maloney Mathematics as a Tool of Manipulation in Modern Society. Review of the book by Cathy O’Neil «Weapons of Math Destruction. How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy» , 2017 .

[33]  Hany Farid,et al.  The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism , 2018, Science Advances.

[34]  Greg Ridgeway Experiments in Criminology: Improving Our Understanding of Crime and the Criminal Justice System , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[35]  Michelle Alexander,et al.  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness A Case Study on the Role of Books in Leveraging Social Change , 2014 .

[36]  P. Hedström,et al.  Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences , 2010 .