Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Designing equitable algorithms

Nature Computational Science volume 3, pages 601–610 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Predictive algorithms are now commonly used to distribute society’s resources and sanctions. But these algorithms can entrench and exacerbate inequities. To guard against this possibility, many have suggested that algorithms be subject to formal fairness constraints. Here we argue, however, that popular constraints—while intuitively appealing—often worsen outcomes for individuals in marginalized groups, and can even leave all groups worse off. We outline a more holistic path forward for improving the equity of algorithmically guided decisions.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The consequences of miscalibrated risk scores.
Fig. 2: The distribution of diabetes risk for all patients and patients with diabetes.
Fig. 3: Inherent trade-offs in ride-share allocation arising from the geographic distribution of residents.
Fig. 4: Preferences for allocating ride-share vouchers.
Fig. 5: The impact of label bias on calibration.

Data availability

The data to reproduce our analysis are available at https://github.com/madisoncoots/equitable-algorithms.

Code availability

The code to reproduce our analysis is available at https://github.com/madisoncoots/equitable-algorithms.

References

  1. Leo, M., Sharma, S. & Maddulety, K. Machine learning in banking risk management: a literature review. Risks 7, 29 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang, Y. & Trubey, P. Machine learning and sampling scheme: an empirical study of money laundering detection. Comput. Econ. 54, 1043–1063 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aggarwal, R. et al. Diabetes screening by race and ethnicity in the United States: equivalent body mass index and age thresholds. Ann. Intern. Med. 175, 765–773 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Friedewald, J. J. et al. The kidney allocation system. Surg. Clin. 93, 1395–1406 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilder, B. et al. Clinical trial of an AI-augmented intervention for HIV prevention in youth experiencing homelessness. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 35, 14948–14956 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mohler, G. O. et al. Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 110, 1399–1411 (2015).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Doucette, M. L., Green, C., Dineen, JenniferNecci, Shapiro, D. & Raissian, K. M. Impact of shotspotter technology on firearm homicides and arrests among large metropolitan counties: a longitudinal analysis, 1999–2016. J. Urban Health 98, 609–621 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chohlas-Wood, A. & Levine, E. S. A recommendation engine to aid in identifying crime patterns. INFORMS J. Appl. Anal. 49, 154–166 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. O’Neill, J. How facial recognition makes you safer. The New York Times (9 June 2019).

  10. DeMichele, M., Baumgartner, P., Wenger, M., Barrick, K. & Comfort, M. Public safety assessment: predictive utility and differential prediction by race in Kentucky. Criminol. Public Policy 19, 409–431 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goel, S., Shroff, R., Skeem, J. & Slobogin, C. in Research Handbook on Big Data Law (ed Vogl, R.) 9–28 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021).

  12. Skeem, J., Monahan, J. & Lowenkamp, C. Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: the cost of treating women like men. Law Hum. Behav. 40, 580 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chohlas-Wood, A. et al. Blind justice: Algorithmically masking race in charging decisions. In Proc. 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 35–45 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).

  14. Speicher, T. et al. Potential for discrimination in online targeted advertising. In Proc. 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (eds Friedler, S. A. & Wilson, C.) 5–19 (PMLR, 2018).

  15. Lambrecht, A. & Tucker, C. Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Manag. Sci. 65, 2966–2981 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. De-Arteaga, M., Fogliato, R. & Chouldechova, A. A case for humans-in-the-loop: Decisions in the presence of erroneous algorithmic scores. In Proc. 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–12 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).

  17. Chouldechova, A., Benavides-Prado, D., Fialko, O. & Vaithianathan, R. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Proc. 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (eds Friedler, S. A. & Wilson, C.) 134–148 (PMLR, 2018).

  18. Brown, A., Chouldechova, A., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Tobin, A. & Vaithianathan, R. Toward algorithmic accountability in public services: A qualitative study of affected community perspectives on algorithmic decision-making in child welfare services. In Proc. 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–12 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).

  19. Shroff, R. Predictive analytics for city agencies: lessons from children’s services. Big Data 5, 189–196 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mayer-Schönberger, V. & Cukier, K. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013).

  21. Allman, M. et al. Designing school choice for diversity in the San Francisco Unified School District. In Proc. 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation 290–291 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  22. Cattell, L. & Bruch, J. Identifying Students at Risk Using Prior Performance Versus A Machine Learning Algorithm Technical Report REL 2021-126 (US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, 2021).

  23. O’Neil, C. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (Broadway Books, 2016).

  24. Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (St Martin’s Press, 2018).

  25. Huq, A. Racial equity in algorithmic criminal justice. Duke Law J. 68, 1043–1134 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yang, C. S. & Dobbie, W. Equal protection under algorithms: a new statistical and legal framework. Mich. Law Rev. 119, 291 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hellman, D. Measuring algorithmic fairness. Va Law Rev. 106, 811–866 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mayson, S. G. Bias in, bias out. Yale Law J. 128, 2218–2300 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Barocas, S. & Selbst, A. D. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. 104, 671 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D’Amour, A. & Lum, K. Algorithmic fairness: choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 8, 141–163 (2021).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Chouldechova, A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data 5, 153–163 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cerdeña, J. P., Plaisime, M. V. & Tsai, J. From race-based to race-conscious medicine: how anti-racist uprisings call us to act. The Lancet 396, 1125–1128 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Manski, C. F. Patient-centered appraisal of race-free clinical risk assessment. Health Econ. 31, 2109–2114 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hardt, M., Price, E. & Srebro, N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 3315–3323 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. Gender Shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proc. 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (eds Friedler, S. A. & Wilson, C.) 77–91 (PMLR, 2018).

  36. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S. & Raghavan, M. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. In Proc. 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2017) (ed Papadimitriou, C.H.) 43:1–43:23 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017).

  37. Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S. & Huq, A. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proc. 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 797–806 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017).

  38. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O. & Zemel, R. Fairness through awareness. In Proc. 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference 214–226 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2012).

  39. Chouldechova, A. & Roth, A. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Commun. ACM 63, 82–89 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Coston, A., Mishler, A., Kennedy, E. H. & Chouldechova, A. Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 582–593 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).

  41. Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M. G., Gummadi, K. P. & Weller, A. From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 228–238 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).

  42. Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M. G. & Gummadi, K. P. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proc. 26th International Conference on World Wide Web 1171–1180 (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2017).

  43. Woodworth, B., Gunasekar, S., Ohannessian, M. I. & Srebro, N. Learning non-discriminatory predictors. In Conference on Learning Theory 1920–1953 (PMLR, 2017).

  44. Wang, Y., Sridhar, D. & Blei, D. M. Equal opportunity and affirmative action via counterfactual predictions. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10870 (2019).

  45. Carey, A. N. & Wu, X. The causal fairness field guide: perspectives from social and formal sciences. Front. Big Data 5, 892837 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C. & Silva, R. Counterfactual fairness. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NIPS 2017) (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 4066–4076 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).

  47. Nabi, R. & Shpitser, I. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1931–1940 (AAAI Press, 2018).

  48. Wu, Y., Zhang, L., Wu, X. & Tong, H. PC-fairness: a unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019) (eds Wallach, H. et al.) (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019).

  49. Galhotra, S., Shanmugam, K., Sattigeri, P. & Varshney, K. R., Causal feature selection for algorithmic fairness. In Proc. 2022 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 276–285 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  50. Mhasawade, V. & Chunara, R. Causal multi-level fairness. In Proc. 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 784–794 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).

  51. Kilbertus, N. et al. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 656–666 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).

  52. Chiappa, S. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 7801–7808 (AAAI Press, 2019).

  53. Zhang, J. & Bareinboim, E. Fairness in decision-making-the causal explanation formula. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2037–2045 (AAAI Press, 2018).

  54. Zhang, L., Wu, Y. & Wu, X. A causal framework for discovering and removing direct and indirect discrimination. In Proc. 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 3929–3935 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2017).

  55. Nilforoshan, H., Gaebler, J. D., Shroff, R. & Goel, S. Causal conceptions of fairness and their consequences. In International Conference on Machine Learning 16848–16887 (PMLR, 2022).

  56. Bent, J. R. Is algorithmic affirmative action legal. Georgetown Law J. 108, 803 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chander, A. The racist algorithm. Mich. Law Rev. 115, 1023 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kim, P. T. Race-aware algorithms: fairness, nondiscrimination and affirmative action. Calif. Law Rev. 110, 1539 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ho, D. E. & Xiang, A. Affirmative algorithms: the legal grounds for fairness as awareness. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. Online 134–154 (2020).

  60. Gillis, T. B. The input fallacy. Minn. Law Rev. 106, 1175 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  61. McCradden, M. D., Joshi, S., Mazwi, M. & Anderson, J. A. Ethical limitations of algorithmic fairness solutions in health care machine learning. Lancet Digit. Health 2, e221–e223 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Paulus, J. K. & Kent, D. M. Predictably unequal: understanding and addressing concerns that algorithmic clinical prediction may increase health disparities. NPJ Digit. Med. 3, 99 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Goodman, S. N., Goel, S. & Cullen, M. R. Machine learning, health disparities, and causal reasoning. Ann. Internal Med. 169, 883–884 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pfohl, S. R., Foryciarz, A. & Shah, N. H. An empirical characterization of fair machine learning for clinical risk prediction. J. Biomed. Inform. 113, 103621 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C. & Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 447–453 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Imai, K., Jiang, Z., Greiner, D. J., Halen, R. & Shin, S. Experimental evaluation of algorithm-assisted human decision-making: application to pretrial public safety assessment. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 186, 167–189 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M. & Roth, A. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state of the art. Sociol. Methods Res. 50, 3–44 (2021).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S. & Sunstein, C. R. Discrimination in the age of algorithms. J. Legal Anal. 10, 113–174 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cowgill, B. & Tucker, C. E. Economics, fairness and algorithmic bias. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361280 (2020).

  70. Nyarko, J., Goel, S. & Sommers, R. Breaking taboos in fair machine learning: an experimental study. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO ’21 14 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).

  71. Grgić-Hlača, N., Lima, G., Weller, A. & Redmiles, E. M. Dimensions of diversity in human perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO ’22 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  72. Liang, A., Lu, J. & Mu, X. Algorithmic design: fairness versus accuracy. In Proc. 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation 58–59 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  73. Card, D. & Smith, N. A. On consequentialism and fairness. Front. Artif. Intell. 3, 34 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hu, L. & Kohler-Hausmann, I. What’s sex got to do with machine learning? In Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 513 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).

  75. Kasy, M. & Abebe, R. Fairness, equality, and power in algorithmic decision-making. In Proc. 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 576–586 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).

  76. Hébert-Johnson, U., Kim, M., Reingold, O. & Rothblum, G. Multicalibration: calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In International Conference on Machine Learning 1939–1948 (PMLR, 2018).

  77. Pleiss, G., Raghavan, M., Wu, F., Kleinberg, J. & Weinberger, K. Q. On fairness and calibration. In Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).

  78. Holland, P. W. Statistics and causal inference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 945–960 (1986).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  79. Gaebler, J. et al. A causal framework for observational studies of discrimination. Statistics and Public Policy 26–48 (Taylor & Francis, 2022).

  80. Greiner, D. J. & Rubin, D. B. Causal effects of perceived immutable characteristics. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93, 775–785 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sen, M. & Wasow, O. Race as a bundle of sticks: designs that estimate effects of seemingly immutable characteristics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 19, 499–522 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Simoiu, C., Corbett-Davies, S. & Goel, S. The problem of infra-marginality in outcome tests for discrimination. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11, 1193–1216 (2017).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. Ayres, I. Outcome tests of racial disparities in police practices. Justice Res. Policy 4, 131–142 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Galster, G. C. The facts of lending discrimination cannot be argued away by examining default rates. Hous. Policy Debate 4, 141–146 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Carr, J. H. et al. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Study on Mortgage Lending Revisited (Fannie Mae Office of Housing Policy Research, 1993).

  86. Knowles, J., Persico, N. & Todd, P. Racial bias in motor vehicle searches: theory and evidence. J. Polit. Econ. 109, 203–232 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Engel, R. S. & Tillyer, R. Searching for equilibrium: the tenuous nature of the outcome test. Justice Q. 25, 54–71 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Anwar, S. & Fang, H. An alternative test of racial prejudice in motor vehicle searches: theory and evidence. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 127–151 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Pierson, E., Corbett-Davies, S. & Goel, S. Fast threshold tests for detecting discrimination. In Proc. 21st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) (eds Storkey, A. & Perez-Cruz, F.) 96–105 (PMLR, 2018).

  90. Fishbane, A., Ouss, A. & Shah, A. K. Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court. Science 370, eabb6591 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Mahoney, B., Beaudin, B. D., Carver, J. A. III, Ryan, D. B. & Hoffman, R. B. Pretrial Services Programs: Responsibilities and Potential (National Institute of Justice, 2001).

  92. Didwania, StephanieHolmes The immediate consequences of federal pretrial detention. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 22, 24–74 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Dobbie, W., Goldin, J. & Yang, C. S. The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: evidence from randomly assigned judges. Am. Econ. Rev. 108, 201–40 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Leslie, E. & Pope, N. G. The unintended impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes: evidence from New York City arraignments. J. Law Econ. 60, 529–557 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Gupta, A., Hansman, C. & Frenchman, E. The heavy costs of high bail: evidence from judge randomization. J. Legal Stud. 45, 471–505 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Brough, R., Freedman, M., Ho, D. E. & Phillips, D. C. Can transportation subsidies reduce failures to appear in criminal court? Evidence from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Econ. Lett. 216, 110540 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Koenecke, A., Giannella, E., Willer, R. & Goel, S. Popular support for balancing equity and efficiency in resource allocation: a case study in online advertising to increase welfare program awareness. In Proc. Seventeenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (eds Lin, Y., Cha, M. & Quercia, D.) 494–506 (AAAI Press, 2023).

  98. Arnett, M. J., Thorpe, R. J., Gaskin, D. J., Bowie, J. V. & LaVeist, T. A. Race, medical mistrust, and segregation in primary care as usual source of care: findings from the exploring health disparities in integrated communities study. J. Urban Health 93, 456–467 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Koenecke, A. et al. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7684–7689 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cai, W. et al. Adaptive sampling strategies to construct equitable training datasets. In Proc. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1467–1478 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  101. Boulware, L. E., Cooper, L. A., Ratner, L. E., LaVeist, T. A. & Powe, N. R. Race and trust in the health care system. Public Health Rep. 118, 358 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Corbett-Davies, S., Gaebler, J., Nilforoshan, H., Shroff, R. & Goel, S. The measure and mismeasure of fairness. J. Mach. Learn. Res. (in the press).

  103. Coots, M., Saghafian, S., Kent, D. & Goel, S. Reevaluating the role of race and ethnicity in diabetes screening. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10220 (2023).

  104. Zanger-Tishler, M., Nyarko, J. & Goel, S. Risk scores, label bias, and everything but the kitchen sink. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12638 (2023).

  105. Chohlas-Wood, A. et al. Automated reminders reduce incarceration for missed court dates: Evidence from a text message experiment. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12389 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Corbett-Davies, J. Gaebler, A. Feller, D. Kent, K. Ladin, H. Nilforoshan and R. Shroff for helpful conversations. Our work was supported by grants from the Harvard Data Science Initiative, the Stanford Impact Labs and Stanford Law School.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Alex Chohlas-Wood & Julian Nyarko

  2. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Madison Coots & Sharad Goel

Authors
  1. Alex Chohlas-Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madison Coots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharad Goel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julian Nyarko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alex Chohlas-Wood, Madison Coots, Sharad Goel or Julian Nyarko.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Computational Science thanks Bryan Wilder, Greg Ridgeway and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Fernando Chirigati, in collaboration with the Nature Computational Science team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chohlas-Wood, A., Coots, M., Goel, S. et al. Designing equitable algorithms. Nat Comput Sci 3, 601–610 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00485-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00485-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics