Cited by 93Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Discrimination and Equality Law

Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combination

Kallus, Nathan, Mao, Xiaojie, Zhou, Angela·2022·Management Science

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

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3850

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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