SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2512.01877

Prejudiced Futures? Algorithmic Bias in Time Series Forecasting and Its Ethical Implications

Abstract

Time series prediction algorithms are increasingly central to decision-making in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, energy management, and economic planning. Yet, these systems often inherit and amplify biases embedded in historical data, flawed problem specifications, and socio-technical design decisions. This paper critically examines the ethical foundations and mitigation strategies for algorithmic bias in time series prediction. We outline how predictive models, particularly in temporally dynamic domains, can reproduce structural inequalities and emergent discrimination through proxy variables and feedback loops. The paper advances a threefold contribution: First, it reframes algorithmic bias as a socio-technical phenomenon rooted in normative choices and institutional constraints. Second, it offers a structured diagnosis of bias sources across the pipeline, emphasizing the need for causal modeling, interpretable systems, and inclusive design practices. Third, it advocates for structural reforms that embed fairness through participatory governance, stakeholder engagement, and legally enforceable safeguards. Special attention is given to fairness validation in dynamic environments, proposing multi-metric, temporally-aware, and context-sensitive evaluation methods. Ultimately, we call for an integrated ethics-by-design approach that positions fairness not as a trade-off against performance, but as a co-requisite of responsible innovation. This framework is essential to developing predictive systems that are not only effective and adaptive but also aligned with democratic values and social equity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Bagattini Alexander, Chen Shao. 2025-12-01. Prejudiced Futures? Algorithmic Bias in Time Series Forecasting and Its Ethical Implications. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01877

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Identification in Linear Quantile Panel Models

This paper studies identification in linear quantile panel models with unrestricted individual heterogeneity when the number of time periods is fixed and small. We impose strict exogeneity, whereby the conditional quantile restriction holds given the individual's complete regressor history and latent individual effect, but otherwise allow the disturbances to be arbitrarily dependent over time.

econ.EM

Experimental Design for Policy Choice

We show how to optimally design experiments when the resulting data will be used to choose a welfare-maximizing policy subject to constraints. A decision maker seeks to maximize Bayes expected welfare by choosing a policy whose effects depend on an unknown finite-dimensional parameter. The decision maker has access to a first wave of experimental data with a fixed design but may choose the design of a second wave that will be collected before choosing the policy. The resulting experimental design--policy choice problem is a very high-dimensional dynamic program that is generally intractable in finite samples. We propose a tractable approximation based on the limit experiment and show it is asymptotically optimal using a new asymptotic representation theorem for adaptive experiments with continuous treatments. We apply the method to a conditional cash transfer experiment and demonstrate the potential for large gains from tailoring the experiment to the policy choice.

econ.EM

Designing Spatial Treatments

Spatial treatments are interventions assigned to locations potentially distinct from those of the responding units. We study their optimal design under a general model in which a unit's response diminishes with distance to a treated site. Our estimand of interest is an ``uncontaminated'' effect equal to the average impact of a single intervention site over all hypothetical sites. We propose a novel design based on a Mat\'{e}rn point process which separates treatments by a distance of at least $r$. A larger choice of $r$ reduces bias by separating interventions but increases variance by reducing their numerosity. We choose $r$ to maximize the rate of convergence of a Horvitz-Thompson estimator and prove that this is minimax rate-optimal. We provide weak conditions under which the estimator is asymptotically normal and propose a variance estimator.

econ.EM