Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing

Ahmed S. Almasoud · Jamiu Adekunle Idowu

29 citations0/0 files storedAI and Ethics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI Policing Practices and Perceptions Artificial Intelligence in Law

Abstract

Abstract The increasing use of algorithms in predictive policing has raised concerns regarding the potential amplification of societal biases. This study adopts a two-phase approach, encompassing a systematic review and the mitigation of age-related biases in predictive policing. Our systematic review identifies a variety of fairness strategies in existing literature, such as domain knowledge, likelihood function penalties, counterfactual reasoning, and demographic segmentation, with a primary focus on racial biases. However, this review also highlights significant gaps in addressing biases related to other protected attributes, including age, gender, and socio-economic status. Additionally, it is observed that police actions are a major contributor to model discrimination in predictive policing. To address these gaps, our empirical study focuses on mitigating age-related biases within the Chicago Police Department's Strategic Subject List (SSL) dataset used in predicting the risk of being involved in a shooting incident, either as a victim or an offender. We introduce Conditional Score Recalibration (CSR), a novel bias mitigation technique, alongside the established Class Balancing method. CSR involves reassessing and adjusting risk scores for individuals initially assigned moderately high-risk scores, categorizing them as low risk if they meet three criteria: no prior arrests for violent offenses, no previous arrests for narcotic offenses, and no involvement in shooting incidents. Our fairness assessment, utilizing metrics like Equality of Opportunity Difference, Average Odds Difference, and Demographic Parity, demonstrates that this approach significantly improves model fairness without sacrificing accuracy.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2018Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification 2019Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources 2021A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness 2021Discrimination in the age of artificial intelligence 2019Crowdsourcing Perceptions of Fair Predictors for Machine Learning 2019Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice 2024Debiasing Education Algorithms

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.