Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combination
Abstract
The increasing impact of algorithmic decisions on people’s lives compels us to scrutinize their fairness and, in particular, the disparate impacts that ostensibly color-blind algorithms can have on different groups. Examples include credit decisioning, hiring, advertising, criminal justice, personalized medicine, and targeted policy making, where in some cases legislative or regulatory frameworks for fairness exist and define specific protected classes. In this paper we study a fundamental challenge to assessing disparate impacts in practice: protected class membership is often not observed in the data. This is particularly a problem in lending and healthcare. We consider the use of an auxiliary data set, such as the U.S. census, to construct models that predict the protected class from proxy variables, such as surname and geolocation. We show that even with such data, a variety of common disparity measures are generally unidentifiable, providing a new perspective on the documented biases of popular proxy-based methods. We provide exact characterizations of the tightest possible set of all possible true disparities that are consistent with the data (and possibly additional assumptions). We further provide optimization-based algorithms for computing and visualizing these sets and statistical tools to assess sampling uncertainty. Together, these enable reliable and robust assessments of disparities—an important tool when disparity assessment can have far-reaching policy implica…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Kallus, Mao, and Zhou (2021) show that proxy-based measurement can render disparity estimates unidentifiable.
“Kallus, Mao, and Zhou (2021) show that proxy-based measurement can render disparity estimates unidentifiable.”
From Fairness Testing for Algorithmic Pricing (2026) · cites this paper as Kallus, Mao, and Zhou (2021)
Cites
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
Fairness definitions explained
Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness · doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776 · Cited by 1,124 · see citing works
Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017) · Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43 · Cited by 943 · see citing works
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093 · Cited by 854 · see citing works
Elliott, M. N., Morrison, P. A., Fremont, A., McCaffrey, D. F., Pantoja, P., & Lurie, N. (2009) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1007/s10742-009-0047-1 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm that Guides Health Decisions for 70 Million People
Obermeyer, Z., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287593 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Assessing Fair Lending Risks Using Race/Ethnicity Proxies
Zhang, Y. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2579 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Machine Learning, Health Disparities, and Causal Reasoning
Goodman, S. N., Goel, S., & Cullen, M. R. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-3297 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Antidiscrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models
Xin, X., & Huang, F. (2024) · North American Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/10920277.2023.2190528 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Fairness Without Demographic Data: A Survey of Approaches
Ashurst, C., & Weller, A. (2023) · Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623234 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Fairness Testing for Algorithmic Pricing
Huang, F., & Hooker, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11614
- Authors
- Kallus, N., Mao, X., & Zhou, A.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1959-1981
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W3141602314
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 15.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, indirect discrimination, proxy variables, data combination, non-identifiability, auxiliary information, mortgage lending, sampling uncertainty, optimization algorithms
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