Mind the Gap: A Causal Perspective on Bias Amplification in Prediction & Decision-Making

Investigating fairness and equity of automated systems has become a critical field of inquiry. Most of the literature in fair machine learning focuses on defining and achieving fairness criteria in the context of prediction, while not explicitly focusing on how these predictions may be used later on in the pipeline. For instance, if commonly used criteria, such as independence or sufficiency, are satisfied for a prediction score S used for binary classification, they need not be satisfied after an application of a simple thresholding operation on S (as commonly used in practice). In this paper, we take an important step to address this issue in numerous statistical and causal notions of fairness. We introduce the notion of a margin complement, which measures how much a prediction score S changes due to a thresholding operation. We then demonstrate that the marginal difference in the optimal 0/1 predictor Y between groups, written P (y x₁) - P (y x₀), can be causally decomposed into the influences of X on the L₂-optimal prediction score S and the influences of X on the margin complement M, along different causal pathways (direct, indirect, spurious). We then show that under suitable causal assumptions, the influences of X on the prediction score S are equal to the influences of X on the true outcome Y. This yields a new decomposition of the disparity in the predictor Y that allows us to disentangle causal differences inherited from the true outcome Y that exists in the real world vs. those coming from the optimization procedure itself. This observation highlights the need for more regulatory oversight due to the potential for bias amplification, and to address this issue we introduce new notions of weak and strong business necessity, together with an algorithm for assessing whether these notions are satisfied.