With Malice Towards None: Assessing Uncertainty via Equalized Coverage

We are increasingly turning to machine learning systems to support human decisions. While decision makers may be subject to many forms of prejudice and bias, the promise and hope is that machines would be able to make more equitable decisions. Unfortunately, whether because they are fitted on already biased data or otherwise, there are concerns that some of these data driven recommendation systems treat members of different classes differently, perpetrating biases, providing different degrees of utilities, and inducing disparities. The examples that have emerged are quite varied: 1. Criminal justice: courts in the United States use COMP AS--a commercially available algorithm to assess a criminal defendant's likelihood of becoming a recidivist--to help them decide who should receive parole, based on records collected through the criminal justice system. In 2016 ProPublica analyzed COMP AS and "found that black defendants were far more likely than white defendants to be incorrectly judged to be at a higher risk of recidivism, while white defendants were more likely than black defendants to be incorrectly flagged as low risk" [1].