Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40547045›Full record

ArticleAmerican economic review. Insights2025

Building Nondiscriminatory Algorithms in Selected Data.

David Arnold, Will Dobbie, Peter Hull

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American economic review. Insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David ArnoldUniversity of California, San Diego and NBER.
Will DobbieHarvard Kennedy School and NBER.
Peter HullBrown University and NBER.

Funding

Science/Technical CoreP2CHD041020 · NICHD · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Margot Jackson · 2016 to 2026
$7.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We develop new quasi-experimental tools to understand algorithmic discrimination and build non-discriminatory algorithms when the outcome of interest is only selectively observed. We first show that algorithmic discrimination arises when the available algorithmic inputs are systematically different for individuals with the same objective potential outcomes. We then show how algorithmic discrimination can be eliminated by measuring and purging these conditional input disparities. Leveraging the quasi-random assignment of bail judges in New York City, we find that our new algorithms not only eliminate algorithmic discrimination but also generate more accurate predictions by correcting for the selective observability of misconduct outcomes.

Indexed as

C26J15K42

Identifiers

PMID40547045
PMCPMC12180558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.