A Framework for Ethical Algorithm Auditing in Machine Learning Models Deployed in Criminal Justice Systems Based on Fairness Constraints and Counterfactual Explanations

Suresh Venkatasubramanian

Authors

Suresh Venkatasubramanian Professor of Computer Science, USA Author

Keywords:

algorithmic fairness, counterfactual explanations, ethical AI, criminal justice, algorithm auditing, machine learning governance

Abstract

As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly integrated into criminal justice systems (CJS), concerns around algorithmic fairness, accountability, and transparency have intensified. This paper proposes a structured auditing framework grounded in fairness constraints and counterfactual reasoning to evaluate and mitigate ethical concerns in ML deployments within the criminal justice context. The framework introduces an auditing pipeline that operationalizes group fairness metrics alongside counterfactual explanations to diagnose and redress potential biases. We analyze the application of this framework through case studies, discuss the implications for policy and governance, and highlight challenges in balancing predictive utility with ethical compliance. Our findings contribute to the development of responsible AI practices in high-stakes decision-making environments.

References

Dwork, Cynthia, et al. "Fairness through Awareness." Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2012, pp. 214–226.

Hardt, Moritz, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. "Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016, pp. 3315–3323.

Kleinberg, Jon, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. "Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores." Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2017, pp. 1–23.

Wachter, Sandra, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. "Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR." Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2017, pp. 841–887.

Mothilal, Ramaravind Kommiya, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. "Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations." Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT), 2020, pp. 607–617.

Raji, Inioluwa Deborah, and Joy Buolamwini. "Actionable Auditing: Investigating the Impact of Publicly Naming Biased Performance Results of Commercial AI Products." Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2019, pp. 429–435.

Selbst, Andrew D., et al. "Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems." Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*), 2019, pp. 59–68.

Barocas, Solon, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. 2019. Preprint.

Angwin, Julia, et al. "Machine Bias." ProPublica, 23 May 2016, www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

Corbett-Davies, Sam, and Sharad Goel. "The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023, 2018.

Binns, Reuben. "Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy." Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020, pp. 149–159.

Rudin, Cynthia. "Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead." Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, 2019, pp. 206–215.

Sandvig, Christian, et al. "Auditing Algorithms: Research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms." Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays, Open Technology Institute, 2014, pp. 1–23.

Binns, Reuben, et al. "‘It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage’: Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions." Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018, pp. 1–14.

Lipton, Zachary C. "The Mythos of Model Interpretability." Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, no. 10, 2018, pp. 36–43