Abstract:Data and algorithms have the potential to produce and perpetuate discrimination and disparate treatment. As such, significant effort has been invested in developing approaches to defining, detecting, and eliminating unfair outcomes in algorithms. In this paper, we focus on performing statistical inference for fairness. Prior work in fairness inference has largely focused on inferring the fairness properties of a given predictive algorithm. Here, we expand fairness inference by evaluating fairness in the data generating process itself, referred to here as data fairness. We perform inference on data fairness using targeted learning, a flexible framework for nonparametric inference. We derive estimators demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information. Additionally, we find that our estimators for probabilistic metrics exploit double robustness. To validate our approach, we perform several simulations and apply our estimators to real data.
Abstract:Counterfactual explanations are a common approach to providing recourse to data subjects. However, current methodology can produce counterfactuals that cannot be achieved by the subject, making the use of counterfactuals for recourse difficult to justify in practice. Though there is agreement that plausibility is an important quality when using counterfactuals for algorithmic recourse, ground truth plausibility continues to be difficult to quantify. In this paper, we propose using longitudinal data to assess and improve plausibility in counterfactuals. In particular, we develop a metric that compares longitudinal differences to counterfactual differences, allowing us to evaluate how similar a counterfactual is to prior observed changes. Furthermore, we use this metric to generate plausible counterfactuals. Finally, we discuss some of the inherent difficulties of using counterfactuals for recourse.