Erratum: Measuring disparate outcomes of content recommendation algorithms with distributional inequality metrics.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100568.].

Measuring disparate outcomes of content recommendation algorithms with distributional inequality metrics.

The harmful impacts of algorithmic decision systems have recently come into focus, with many examples of machine learning (ML) models amplifying societal biases. In this paper, we propose adapting income inequality metrics from economics to complement existing model-level fairness metrics, which focus on intergroup differences of model performance. In particular, we evaluate their ability to measure disparities between exposures that individuals receive in a production recommendation system, the Twitter algorithmic timeline. We define desirable criteria for metrics to be used in an operational setting by ML practitioners. We characterize engagements with content on Twitter using these metrics and use the results to evaluate the metrics with respect to our criteria. We also show that we can use these metrics to identify content suggestion algorithms that contribute more strongly to skewed outcomes between users. Overall, we conclude that these metrics can be a useful tool for auditing algorithms in production settings.

A Silicon Valley love triangle: Hiring algorithms, pseudo-science, and the quest for auditability.

In this perspective, we develop a matrix for auditing algorithmic decision-making systems (ADSs) used in the hiring domain. The tool is a socio-technical assessment of hiring ADSs that is aimed at surfacing the underlying assumptions that justify the use of an algorithmic tool and the forms of knowledge or insight they purport to produce. These underlying assumptions, it is argued, are crucial for assessing not only whether an ADS works "as intended," but also whether the intentions with which the tool was designed are well founded. Throughout, we contextualize the use of the matrix within current and proposed regulatory regimes and within emerging hiring practices that incorporate algorithmic technologies. We suggest using the matrix to expose underlying assumptions rooted in pseudo-scientific essentialized understandings of human nature and capability and to critically investigate emerging auditing standards and practices that fail to address these assumptions.