Cited by 288Ethics and Social Impacts of AINames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchDiscrimination and Equality Law

A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis

Romei, Andrea, Ruggieri, Salvatore·2014·The Knowledge Engineering Review

Abstract

The collection and analysis of observational and experimental data represent the main tools for assessing the presence, the extent, the nature, and the trend of discrimination phenomena. Data analysis techniques have been proposed in the last 50 years in the economic, legal, statistical, and, recently, in the data mining literature. This is not surprising, since discrimination analysis is a multidisciplinary problem, involving sociological causes, legal argumentations, economic models, statistical techniques, and computational issues. The objective of this survey is to provide a guidance and a glue for researchers and anti-discrimination data analysts on concepts, problems, application areas, datasets, methods, and approaches from a multidisciplinary perspective. We organize the approaches according to their method of data collection as observational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies. A fourth line of recently blooming research on knowledge discovery based methods is also covered. Observational methods are further categorized on the basis of their application context: labor economics, social profiling, consumer markets, and others.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0269888913000039

Cites

442 of 442 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Not considering correlated variables has been shown to increase the risk of discrimination.

    “Not considering correlated variables has been shown to increase the risk of discrimination (e.g., redlining 4 ) [54,88,89,89,196,202,231,247,286,308].”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [247]

  • There is a risk of redlining, where although the sensitive attribute is 'handled' sufficiently, correlated variables are still present, amplifying instead of reducing unfairness.

    “There is also the risk of redlining, where although the sensitive attribute is łhandledž suiciently, correlated variables are still present [54,89,231,247,286,308], amplifying instead of reducing unfairness [89].”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [247]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S.
Affiliations
University of Pisa (IT)
Venue
The Knowledge Engineering Review
Published
2013-04-03
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
582-638
ISSN
  • 0269-8889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8005
OpenAlex
W2166454173
Cited by
288
References
442
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
29.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Knowledge Engineering Review (publishedVersion)
  • UnipiEprints Open Archive (Università di Pisa) (acceptedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • ISTI Open Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
Keywords
discrimination analysis, anti-discrimination, observational studies, quasi-experimental design, experimental study, knowledge discovery, labor economics, social profiling, consumer market

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review