mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax Audit Models

arXiv 2206.09875 ↗First posted 20 Jun 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the field of algorithmic fairness has developed primarily around notions of treating like individuals alike, we instead explore the concept of vertical equity -- appropriately accounting for relevant differences across individuals -- which is a central component of fairness in many public policy settings. Applied to the design of the U.S. individual income tax system, vertical equity relates to the fair allocation of tax and enforcement burdens across taxpayers of different income levels. Through a unique collaboration with the Treasury Department and IRS, we use access to anonymized individual taxpayer microdata, risk-selected audits, and random audits from 2010-14 to study vertical equity in tax administration. In particular, we assess how the use of modern machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity. First, we show how the use of more flexible machine learning (classification) methods -- as opposed to simpler models -- shifts audit burdens from high to middle-income taxpayers. Second, we show that while existing algorithmic fairness techniques can mitigate some disparities across income, they can incur a steep cost to performance. Third, we show that the choice of whether to treat risk of underreporting as a classification or regression problem is highly consequential. Moving from classification to regression models to predict underreporting shifts audit burden substantially toward high income individuals, while increasing revenue. Last, we explore the role of differential audit cost in shaping the audit distribution. We show that a narrow focus on return-on-investment can undermine vertical equity. Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2022.

Builds on

18 of 52 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  3. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  4. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  5. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  6. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  7. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  8. 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 215
  9. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 189
  10. 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
  11. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
  12. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
6 more
  1. 201850 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learningcited by 101
  2. 2019Problem Formulation and Fairnesscited by 85
  3. 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
  4. 2018A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunitycited by 53
  5. 2021Selective Ensembles for Consistent Predictionscited by 23
  6. 2021An Empirical Comparison of Bias Reduction Methods on Real-World Problems in High-Stakes Policy Settingscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 7; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

12 papers.