Algorithmic UDAP

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17007v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 19:06:22 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic UDAP
• Authors: Talia Gillis, Riley Stacy, Sam Brumer, Emily Black,
• Abstract summary: This paper compares two legal frameworks -- disparate impact (DI) and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAP)<n>We formalize and operationalize both doctrines in a simulated lending setting to assess how they evaluate algorithmic disparities.
• Score: 2.648235264372073
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper compares two legal frameworks -- disparate impact (DI) and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAP) -- as tools for evaluating algorithmic discrimination, focusing on the example of fair lending. While DI has traditionally served as the foundation of fair lending law, recent regulatory efforts have invoked UDAP, a doctrine rooted in consumer protection, as an alternative means to address algorithmic discrimination harms. We formalize and operationalize both doctrines in a simulated lending setting to assess how they evaluate algorithmic disparities. While some regulatory interpretations treat UDAP as operating similarly to DI, we argue it is an independent and analytically distinct framework. In particular, UDAP's "unfairness" prong introduces elements such as avoidability of harm and proportionality balancing, while its "deceptive" and "abusive" standards may capture forms of algorithmic harm that elude DI analysis. At the same time, translating UDAP into algorithmic settings exposes unresolved ambiguities, underscoring the need for further regulatory guidance if it is to serve as a workable standard.

Related papers

• What Constitutes a Less Discriminatory Algorithm? [2.842548870013324]
  We argue that formal LDA definitions face fundamental challenges when they attempt to evaluate and compare predictive models in the absence of held-out data.<n>We put forward a framework in which both firms and plaintiffs can search for alternative models that comport with societal goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T03:49:48Z)
• Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing [0.0]
  The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act takes effect on 1 August 2024. High-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. We propose a novel framework, which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:35:34Z)
• The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms [4.625678906362822]
  We argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs. Model multiplicity and the availability of LDAs have significant ramifications for the legal response to discriminatory algorithms. We argue that the law should place a duty of a reasonable search for LDAs on entities that develop and deploy predictive models in covered civil rights domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T21:56:38Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law [2.959308758321417]
  We present a novel algorithm (FAir Interpolation Method: FAIM) for continuously interpolating between three fairness criteria.<n>We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm when applied to synthetic data, the COMPAS data set, and a new, real-world data set from the e-commerce sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T12:47:54Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• Fairness via Adversarial Attribute Neighbourhood Robust Learning [49.93775302674591]
  We propose a principled underlineRobust underlineAdversarial underlineAttribute underlineNeighbourhood (RAAN) loss to debias the classification head.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-12T23:39:28Z)
• Mitigating Algorithmic Bias with Limited Annotations [65.060639928772]
  When sensitive attributes are not disclosed or available, it is needed to manually annotate a small part of the training data to mitigate bias. We propose Active Penalization Of Discrimination (APOD), an interactive framework to guide the limited annotations towards maximally eliminating the effect of algorithmic bias. APOD shows comparable performance to fully annotated bias mitigation, which demonstrates that APOD could benefit real-world applications when sensitive information is limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T16:31:19Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax Audit Models [73.24381010980606]
  This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the IRS. We show how the use of more flexible machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity. Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-20T16:27:06Z)
• Reusing the Task-specific Classifier as a Discriminator: Discriminator-free Adversarial Domain Adaptation [55.27563366506407]
  We introduce a discriminator-free adversarial learning network (DALN) for unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) DALN achieves explicit domain alignment and category distinguishment through a unified objective. DALN compares favorably against the existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on a variety of public datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-08T04:40:18Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.