Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought
Open accessAbstract
Although computer scientists are eager to help address social problems, the field faces a growing awareness that many well-intentioned applications of algorithms in social contexts have led to significant harm. We argue that addressing this gap between the field's desire to do good and the harmful impacts of many of its interventions requires looking to the epistemic and methodological underpinnings of algorithms. We diagnose the dominant mode of algorithmic reasoning as "algorithmic formalism" and describe how formalist orientations lead to harmful algorithmic interventions. Addressing these harms requires pursuing a new mode of algorithmic thinking that is attentive to the internal limits of algorithms and to the social concerns that fall beyond the bounds of algorithmic formalism. To understand what a methodological evolution beyond formalism looks like and what it may achieve, we turn to the twentieth century evolution in American legal thought from legal formalism to legal realism. Drawing on the lessons of legal realism, we propose a new mode of algorithmic thinking---"algorithmic realism"---that provides tools for computer scientists to account for the realities of social life and of algorithmic impacts. These realist approaches, although not foolproof, will better equip computer scientists to reduce algorithmic harms and to reason well about doing good.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most existing XAI methods target math-savvy AI creators to aid model debugging and monitoring.
“However, most existing explainable AI (XAI) methods [10,21,43] target math-savy AI creators [1,22] to aid them in AI model debugging and monitoring [6].”
From Being Trustworthy is Not Enough: How Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Deceive the End-Users and Gain Their Trust (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
The fairness community often repurposes US legal terms such as disparate impact, disparate treatment, and equal opportunity to compare technical fairness properties by analogy with legal concepts.
“The community also often repurposes terminology from US legal domains, such as “disparate impact”, “disparate treatment”, and “equal opportunity”, or use them as points of triangulation, in order to compare technical properties of fairness through analogy with legal concepts [81,82].”
From Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond (2021) · cites this paper as [81]
Many variables are explicitly defined as 'sensitive' by specific legal frameworks.
“We note that many variables are explicitly deined as łsensitivež by speciic legal frameworks, see [25,129,130,191,192,209,268,280,306] and the references therein.”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [130]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 131 · Cited by 161
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Justin J. Boutilier and Timothy C.Y. Chan. 2018. Ambulance Emergency Response Optimization in Developing Countries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.05402 (2018). · arXiv
- Paul Butler. 2017. Chokehold: Policing Black Men. The New Press.
- Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. 1988. Foreword: Towards a Race-Conscious Pedagogy in Legal Education. National Black Law Journal 11, 1 (1988), 1-14.
- Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Eric Gordon and Stephen Walter. 2016. Meaningful Inefficiencies: Resisting the Logic of Technological Efficiency in the Design of Civic Systems. In Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice, Eric Gordon and Paul Mihailidis (Eds.). 243.
- Andre Gorz. 1967. Strategy for Labor. Beacon Press.
- Ben Green. 2018. Data Science as Political Action: Grounding Data Science in a Politics of Justice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03435 (2018). · arXiv
- Ben Green and Lily Hu. 2018. The Myth in the Methodology: Towards a Re- contextualization of Fairness in Machine Learning. In Machine Learning: The Debates workshop at the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning.
- Sheila Jasanoff. 2004. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of Knowl- edge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, Sheila Jasanoff (Ed.). Routledge, 13-45.
- Frederick Schauer. 1987. Formalism. Yale Law Journal 97, 4 (1987), 509-548.
- Authors
- Green, B., & Viljoen, S.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- ORCID
- Viljoen, Salomé
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Pages
- 19-31
- OpenAlex
- W3001248429
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 131
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 21.52
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DGE1745303)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Keywords
- legal realism, legal formalism, algorithmic harms, algorithmic reasoning, social impact of algorithms, algorithmic intervention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review