Identifying biases in legal data: An algorithmic fairness perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09946v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 04:05:12 GMT
• Title: Identifying biases in legal data: An algorithmic fairness perspective
• Abstract summary: We study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness perspective. Our approach utilizes two regression models: A baseline that represents the decisions of a "typical" judge as given by the data and a "fair" judge that applies one of three fairness concepts.
• Score: 3.8073142980733
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The need to address representation biases and sentencing disparities in legal case data has long been recognized. Here, we study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness perspective. Our approach utilizes two regression models: A baseline that represents the decisions of a "typical" judge as given by the data and a "fair" judge that applies one of three fairness concepts. Comparing the decisions of the "typical" judge and the "fair" judge allows for quantifying biases across demographic groups, as we demonstrate in four case studies on criminal data from Cook County (Illinois).

Related papers

• LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts [10.704307144706226]
  Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's.<n>We compare predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups.<n>First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators.<n>Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T18:33:15Z)
• The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice [0.0]
  We show that racial bias is not only present in the COMPAS dataset but is also amplified by the models trained on it.<n>Applying fairness constraints does not necessarily cost predictive accuracy in criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T15:09:27Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• When Fairness Isn't Statistical: The Limits of Machine Learning in Evaluating Legal Reasoning [4.096453902709292]
  Legal decisions are increasingly evaluated for fairness, consistency, and bias using machine learning (ML) techniques.<n>In high-stakes domains like refugee adjudication, such methods are often applied to detect disparities in outcomes.<n>Yet it remains unclear whether statistical methods can meaningfully assess fairness in legal contexts shaped by discretion, normative complexity, and limited ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T13:05:37Z)
• Where Fact Ends and Fairness Begins: Redefining AI Bias Evaluation through Cognitive Biases [77.3489598315447]
  We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation.<n>We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity [3.5607241839298878]
  Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T09:38:05Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions [4.159343412286401]
  We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T15:18:30Z)
• On Disentangled and Locally Fair Representations [95.6635227371479]
  We study the problem of performing classification in a manner that is fair for sensitive groups, such as race and gender. We learn a locally fair representation, such that, under the learned representation, the neighborhood of each sample is balanced in terms of the sensitive attribute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-05T14:26:50Z)
• Legal perspective on possible fairness measures - A legal discussion using the example of hiring decisions (preprint) [0.0]
  We explain the different kinds of fairness concepts that might be applicable for the specific application of hiring decisions. We analyze their pros and cons with regard to the respective fairness interpretation and evaluate them from a legal perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T06:41:39Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)
• Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness [48.76267073341723]
  We define conditional fairness as a more sound fairness metric by conditioning on the fairness variables. We propose a Derivable Conditional Fairness Regularizer (DCFR) to track the trade-off between precision and fairness of algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T12:56:28Z)
• Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels [84.12514975093826]
  We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-30T20:47:00Z)
• Fair Prediction with Endogenous Behavior [14.004287903552534]
  Using criminal justice as an example, we study a model in which society chooses an incarceration rule. We show that equalizing type I and type II errors across groups is consistent with the goal of minimizing the overall crime rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-18T16:07:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.