THREAD: Bias and disparity in a causal modeling framework.

1. A few months ago, @vtraag and @LudoWaltman posted a superb paper to the arXiv.

http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13665

I've been meaning to write about it for a while and finally found the time.

Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness

The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences. However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept. Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all. To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias. We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way. We compare our definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. In addition, we discuss how our definitions relate to discrimination. We illustrate our definitions of bias and disparity in two case studies, focusing on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. Our proposed definitions aim to contribute to a better appreciation of the causal intricacies of studies of biases and disparities. We hope that this will also promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.

arXiv.org

2. Society is rife with differences that we feel are unjust.

Differences in opportunities and outcomes according to race are ubiquitous in American society.

Or in science, I've written about gender differences in scientific authorship and citation, for example.

We often call these "biases".

3. In this paper, Traag and Waltman propose definitions and methodology for thinking more rigorously about the nature of these differences, in ways that help us identify where we can best intervene to ameliorate them.

To do so, they propose that we distinguish between *biases* and *disparities*.

4. They define biases as differences due to (1) we consider unjustified that are (2) causal and (3) causally direct.

For example, if a hiring manager chose not to hire people of a certain race, the racial differences in employment in that firm would be unjustified, caused by race, and directly so.

@ct_bergstrom I don't like the definition. Mostly because of "un/justified"

It's inserting a personal interpretation of what is "just" into an objective evaluation.

In this case, "unjustified" is essentially calling racism not just an alternative and morally wrong reasoning, it's denying that racists are capable of reason.

That's hubris.

Racists are racist because it seems just and right to them. Their belief is wrong, not the way or that they justify their actions on their belief.