Less Discriminatory Algorithms
Emily Black, Logan Koepke, Pauline Kim, Solon Barocas, and Mingwei Hsu
ReportAbstract
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.
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 Work
We wrote comments in response to the Office of Management and Budget’s draft memorandum, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Across the FieldAs the Biden-Harris administration considers the contents of an Executive Order on artificial intelligence, the undersigned civil rights, technology, policy, and research organizations call on the administration to continue centering civil rights protections.
Across the FieldWe responded to the Federal Trade Commission’s request for information on tenant screening technologies, demonstrating how they drive housing insecurity and discrimination.
HousingAlongside 40 other civil rights and technology advocacy organizations, Upturn called on the Federal Trade Commission to develop specific, concrete civil rights protections in the Commission’s ongoing Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Rulemaking.
Across the Field