Local Law 144: A Critical Analysis of Regression Metrics
Open accessAbstract
The use of automated decision tools in recruitment has received an increasing amount of attention. In November 2021, the New York City Council passed a legislation (Local Law 144) that mandates bias audits of Automated Employment Decision Tools. From 15th April 2023, companies that use automated tools for hiring or promoting employees are required to have these systems audited by an independent entity. Auditors are asked to compute bias metrics that compare outcomes for different groups, based on sex/gender and race/ethnicity categories at a minimum. Local Law 144 proposes novel bias metrics for regression tasks (scenarios where the automated system scores candidates with a continuous range of values). A previous version of the legislation proposed a bias metric that compared the mean scores of different groups. The new revised bias metric compares the proportion of candidates in each group that falls above the median. In this paper, we argue that both metrics fail to capture distributional differences over the whole domain, and therefore cannot reliably detect bias. We first introduce two metrics, as possible alternatives to the legislation metrics. We then compare these metrics over a range of theoretical examples, for which the legislation proposed metrics seem to underestimate bias. Finally, we study real data and show that the legislation metrics can similarly fail in a real-world recruitment application.
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?
Analyses of the early audit regime highlight concerns about definitional scope, methodological variability, and the risk that compliance may prioritize minimum reporting over substantive fairness improvement.
“analyses of the early audit regime highlight concerns about definitional scope, methodological variability, and the risk that compliance may prioritize minimum reporting over substantive fairness improvement”
From The Impact of Structured Validation and Audit Frameworks on the Fairness and Efficiency of AI-Driven Hiring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Filippi et al., 2023
The Introduction (p. not provided) describes the law’s scope and changes to its proposed audit metrics; §5.2 shows that the prescribed metrics can miss bias. Section 4 says the law mandates computing metrics but specifies no fairness threshold. These passages support concerns about the scope and effectiveness of the audit methodology, but do not establish that compliance prioritizes minimum reporting over substantive fairness improvement. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEarly analyses of audit disclosures suggest variability in rigor, method choice, and interpretability, raising questions about whether compliance-only audits are sufficient to meaningfully reduce disparate outcomes in practice.
“early analyses of audit disclosures suggest variability in rigor, method choice, and interpretability, raising questions about whether compliance-only audits are sufficient to meaningfully reduce disparate outcomes in practice”
From The Impact of Structured Validation and Audit Frameworks on the Fairness and Efficiency of AI-Driven Hiring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Filippi et al., 2023
The Introduction and §5.2 (page numbers unavailable) show that the choice of audit metric affects whether bias is detected, including in real recruitment data. The paper does not analyze audit disclosures or establish variability in auditors’ rigor or interpretability, and it does not test whether compliance-only audits reduce disparate outcomes in practice. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501 · see citing works
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening
McKinney, S. M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G. S., Darzi, A., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6 · Cited by 3,287 · see citing works
Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact
Feldman, M., Friedler, S. A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783311 · Cited by 1,827 · see citing works
Using neural network ensembles for bankruptcy prediction and credit scoring
TSAI, C., & Wu, J. (2007) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.05.019 · Cited by 517 · see citing works
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00171 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search
Geyik, S. C., Ambler, S., & Kenthapadi, K. (2019) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330691 · Cited by 382 · see citing works
Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Doshi, T. S., Qian, H., Wei, L., Wu, Y., Heldt, L., Zhao, Z., Hong, L., Ed, H., et al. (2019) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330745 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00109.x · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Assessing Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results Using Ranking Fairness Metrics
Draws, T., Tintarev, N., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A., & Timmermans, B. (2020) · SIGKDD Explorations · doi:10.1145/3468507.3468515 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
A Statistical Test for Probabilistic Fairness
Taşkesen, B., Blanchet, J., Kühn, D., & Nguyen, V. A. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445927 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Comparing Fair Ranking MetricsPreprint
Raj, A., & Ekstrand, M. D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.01311 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Measuring Practical Significance in Adverse Impact Analysis
Oswald, F. L., Dunleavy, E. M., & Shaw, A. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315301433-15 · Cited by 6
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Jeffrey Dastin. Amazon scraps secret ai recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In Ethics of data and analytics, pages 296-299. Auerbach Publications, 2018.
- Alexandra Chouldechova. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data, 5(2):153-163, 2017.
- Michael Feldman, Sorelle A Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 259-268, 2015.
- Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, pages 1171-1180, 2017.
- Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. A reductions approach to fair classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 60-69. PMLR, 2018.
- Alekh Agarwal, Miroslav Dudík, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. Fair regression: Quantitative definitions and reduction- based algorithms. 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 2019-June:166-183, 5 2019.
- M Hardt, E Price, N Srebro, et al. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning, in 'advances in neural information processing systems'. 2016.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Auditing the Audits: Lessons for Algorithmic Accountability from Local Law 144's Bias Audits
Gerchick, M. K., Encarnación, R., Tanigawa-Lau, C., Armstrong, L., Gutiérrez, A., & Metaxa, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732004 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
MS Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Missouri State University Department of Psychology and SHRM- CP, U., & Ahmad, S. (2025) · International Journal of Research and Applied Innovations · doi:10.15662/ijrai.2025.0806023
- Authors
- Filippi, G., Zannone, S., Hilliard, A., & Koshiyama, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.04119
- OpenAlex
- W4319793511
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- bias metrics, hiring discrimination, algorithmic fairness
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
