6 Search Results for "Mullainathan, Sendhil"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.6
Escaping the Subprime Trap in Algorithmic Lending

Authors: Adam Bouyamourn and Alexander Williams Tolbert

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 368, 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)

Abstract
Disparities in lending to minority applicants persist even as algorithmic lending finds widespread adoption. We study the role of risk-management constraints, specifically Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall, in inducing inequality in loan approval decisions, even among applicants who are equally creditworthy. We contribute an analysis of 431,551 loan applications recorded under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, illustrating that disparities in data quality are associated with higher rates of loan denial and higher interest rate spreads for Black borrowers. We develop a formal model in which a mainstream bank (low-interest) is more sensitive to variance risk than a subprime bank (high-interest). If the mainstream bank has an inflated prior belief about the variance of the minority group, it may deny that group credit indefinitely, never learning the true risk of lending to that group, while the subprime lender serves this population at higher rates. We call this "The Subprime Trap": an equilibrium in which minority borrowers can borrow only from high-cost lenders, even when they are as creditworthy as majority applicants. We show that a finite subsidy can help minority groups escape the trap by covering enough of the mainstream bank’s downside so that it can afford to lend to, and thereby learn the true risk of lending to, the minority group. Once the mainstream bank has observed sufficiently many loans, its beliefs converge to the true underlying risk, and competition drives down the interest rates of subprime loans.
Cite as

Adam Bouyamourn and Alexander Williams Tolbert. Escaping the Subprime Trap in Algorithmic Lending. In 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 368, pp. 6:1-6:27, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{bouyamourn_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2026.6,
  author =	{Bouyamourn, Adam and Tolbert, Alexander Williams},
  title =	{{Escaping the Subprime Trap in Algorithmic Lending}},
  booktitle =	{7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)},
  pages =	{6:1--6:27},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-419-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2026},
  volume =	{368},
  editor =	{Lin, Huijia (Rachel)},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-259777},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: Algorithmic fairness, algorithmic lending, Risk management, Value-at-Risk, Algorithmic Philosophy}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.7
When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools

Authors: Charlotte Park, Kate Donahue, and Manish Raghavan

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 368, 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)

Abstract
Generative AI models differ from traditional machine learning tools in that they allow users to provide as much or as little information as they choose in their inputs. This flexibility often leads users to omit certain details, relying on the models to infer and fill in under-specified information based on distributional knowledge of user preferences. Such inferences may privilege majority viewpoints and disadvantage users with atypical preferences, raising concerns about fairness. Unlike more traditional recommender systems, LLMs can explicitly solicit more information from users through natural language. However, while directly eliciting user preferences could increase personalization and mitigate inequality, excessive querying places a burden on users who value efficiency. We develop a stylized model of user-LLM interaction and develop an objective that captures tradeoff between user burden and preference representation. Building on the observation that individual preferences are often correlated, we analyze how AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation. Ultimately, we show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives while maintaining efficiency. We complement this theoretical analysis with an empirical evaluation illustrating the model’s predictions and exploring their practical implications.
Cite as

Charlotte Park, Kate Donahue, and Manish Raghavan. When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools. In 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 368, pp. 7:1-7:25, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{park_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2026.7,
  author =	{Park, Charlotte and Donahue, Kate and Raghavan, Manish},
  title =	{{When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools}},
  booktitle =	{7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)},
  pages =	{7:1--7:25},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-419-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2026},
  volume =	{368},
  editor =	{Lin, Huijia (Rachel)},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.7},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-259782},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.7},
  annote =	{Keywords: human-AI interaction, user modeling, personalization}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.20
Privacy, Prediction, and Allocation

Authors: Ben Jacobsen and Nitin Kohli

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 368, 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)

Abstract
Algorithmic predictions are increasingly used to inform the allocation of scarce resources. The promise of these methods is that, through machine learning, they can better identify the people who would benefit most from interventions. Recently, however, several works have called this assumption into question by demonstrating the existence of settings where simple, unit-level allocation strategies can meet or even exceed the performance of those based on individual-level targeting. Separately, other works have objected to individual-level targeting on privacy grounds, leading to an unusual situation where a single solution, unit-level targeting, is recommended for reasons of both privacy and utility. Motivated by the desire to fully understand the interplay of privacy and targeting levels, we initiate the study of aid allocation systems that satisfy differential privacy, synthesizing existing works on private optimization with the economic models of aid allocation used in the non-private literature. To this end, we investigate private variants of both individual and unit-level allocation strategies in both stochastic and distribution-free settings under a range of constraints on data availability. Through this analysis, we provide clean, interpretable bounds characterizing the tradeoffs between privacy, efficiency, and targeting precision in allocation.
Cite as

Ben Jacobsen and Nitin Kohli. Privacy, Prediction, and Allocation. In 7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 368, pp. 20:1-20:24, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{jacobsen_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2026.20,
  author =	{Jacobsen, Ben and Kohli, Nitin},
  title =	{{Privacy, Prediction, and Allocation}},
  booktitle =	{7th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2026)},
  pages =	{20:1--20:24},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-419-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2026},
  volume =	{368},
  editor =	{Lin, Huijia (Rachel)},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.20},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-259935},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2026.20},
  annote =	{Keywords: Differential privacy, fair allocation, limits of prediction}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.19
Mapping the Tradeoffs and Limitations of Algorithmic Fairness

Authors: Etam Benger and Katrina Ligett

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 329, 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)

Abstract
Sufficiency and separation are two fundamental criteria in classification fairness. For binary classifiers, these concepts correspond to subgroup calibration and equalized odds, respectively, and are known to be incompatible except in trivial cases. In this work, we explore a relaxation of these criteria based on f-divergences between distributions - essentially the same relaxation studied in the literature on approximate multicalibration - analyze their relationships, and derive implications for fair representations and downstream uses (post-processing) of representations. We show that when a protected attribute is determinable from features present in the data, the (relaxed) criteria of sufficiency and separation exhibit a tradeoff, forming a convex Pareto frontier. Moreover, we prove that when a protected attribute is not fully encoded in the data, achieving full sufficiency may be impossible. This finding not only strengthens the case against "fairness through unawareness" but also highlights an important caveat for work on (multi-)calibration.
Cite as

Etam Benger and Katrina Ligett. Mapping the Tradeoffs and Limitations of Algorithmic Fairness. In 6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 329, pp. 19:1-19:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{benger_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2025.19,
  author =	{Benger, Etam and Ligett, Katrina},
  title =	{{Mapping the Tradeoffs and Limitations of Algorithmic Fairness}},
  booktitle =	{6th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2025)},
  pages =	{19:1--19:20},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-367-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{329},
  editor =	{Bun, Mark},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.19},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-231465},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2025.19},
  annote =	{Keywords: Algorithmic fairness, information theory, sufficiency-separation tradeoff}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2020.6
Bias In, Bias Out? Evaluating the Folk Wisdom

Authors: Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 156, 1st Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2020)

Abstract
We evaluate the folk wisdom that algorithmic decision rules trained on data produced by biased human decision-makers necessarily reflect this bias. We consider a setting where training labels are only generated if a biased decision-maker takes a particular action, and so "biased" training data arise due to discriminatory selection into the training data. In our baseline model, the more biased the decision-maker is against a group, the more the algorithmic decision rule favors that group. We refer to this phenomenon as bias reversal. We then clarify the conditions that give rise to bias reversal. Whether a prediction algorithm reverses or inherits bias depends critically on how the decision-maker affects the training data as well as the label used in training. We illustrate our main theoretical results in a simulation study applied to the New York City Stop, Question and Frisk dataset.
Cite as

Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth. Bias In, Bias Out? Evaluating the Folk Wisdom. In 1st Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 156, pp. 6:1-6:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{rambachan_et_al:LIPIcs.FORC.2020.6,
  author =	{Rambachan, Ashesh and Roth, Jonathan},
  title =	{{Bias In, Bias Out? Evaluating the Folk Wisdom}},
  booktitle =	{1st Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2020)},
  pages =	{6:1--6:15},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-142-9},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2020},
  volume =	{156},
  editor =	{Roth, Aaron},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2020.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-120225},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2020.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: fairness, selective labels, discrimination, training data}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores

Authors: Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 67, 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017)

Abstract
Recent discussion in the public sphere about algorithmic classification has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for a probabilistic classification to be fair to different groups. We formalize three fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and we prove that except in highly constrained special cases, there is no method that can satisfy these three conditions simultaneously. Moreover, even satisfying all three conditions approximately requires that the data lie in an approximate version of one of the constrained special cases identified by our theorem. These results suggest some of the ways in which key notions of fairness are incompatible with each other, and hence provide a framework for thinking about the trade-offs between them.
Cite as

Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 67, pp. 43:1-43:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{kleinberg_et_al:LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43,
  author =	{Kleinberg, Jon and Mullainathan, Sendhil and Raghavan, Manish},
  title =	{{Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores}},
  booktitle =	{8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017)},
  pages =	{43:1--43:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-029-3},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2017},
  volume =	{67},
  editor =	{Papadimitriou, Christos H.},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-81560},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43},
  annote =	{Keywords: algorithmic fairness, risk tools, calibration}
}
  • Refine by Type
  • 6 Document/PDF
  • 4 Document/HTML

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 3 2026
  • 1 2025
  • 1 2020
  • 1 2017

  • Refine by Author
  • 2 Raghavan, Manish
  • 1 Benger, Etam
  • 1 Bouyamourn, Adam
  • 1 Donahue, Kate
  • 1 Jacobsen, Ben
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Series/Journal
  • 6 LIPIcs

  • Refine by Classification
  • 2 Applied computing → Economics
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Artificial intelligence
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Machine learning
  • 1 Human-centered computing → Interaction paradigms
  • 1 Human-centered computing → User models
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 2 Algorithmic fairness
  • 1 Algorithmic Philosophy
  • 1 Differential privacy
  • 1 Risk management
  • 1 Value-at-Risk
  • Show More...

Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2026 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact