A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring
  Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indices
  Discrimination via algorithmic decision making has received considerable
attention. Prior work largely focuses on defining conditions for fairness, but
does not define satisfactory measures of algorithmic unfairness. In this paper,
we focus on the following question: Given two unfair algorithms, how should we
determine which of the two is more unfair? Our core idea is to use existing
inequality indices from economics to measure how unequally the outcomes of an
algorithm benefit different individuals or groups in a population. Our work
offers a justified and general framework to compare and contrast the
(un)fairness of algorithmic predictors. This unifying approach enables us to
quantify unfairness both at the individual and the group level. Further, our
work reveals overlooked tradeoffs between different fairness notions: using our
proposed measures, the overall individual-level unfairness of an algorithm can
be decomposed into a between-group and a within-group component. Earlier
methods are typically designed to tackle only between-group unfairness, which
may be justified for legal or other reasons. However, we demonstrate that
minimizing exclusively the between-group component may, in fact, increase the
within-group, and hence the overall unfairness. We characterize and illustrate
the tradeoffs between our measures of (un)fairness and the prediction accuracy.
