Cited by 262Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPolitical Philosophy and EthicsGame Theory and Voting Systems

The (Im)possibility of fairness: different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making

Friedler, Sorelle A., Scheidegger, Carlos, Venkatasubramanian, Suresh·2021·Communications of the ACM

Abstract

What does it mean to be fair?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3433949

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • The axiomatics of the decision-maker's choice (for the selection of candidates for university entrance) have implications on the outcomes and their (in)fairness; the decision-maker can estimate that there is no distance between the space of unobservable variables and that of observed variables (axiom: 'What you see is what you get') or that these spaces are separate, in which case the decision-mak

    “They then show that the axiomatics of the decision-maker's choice (for the selection of candidates for university entrance) have implications on the outcomes and their (in)fairness”
  • The choices made on the basis of algorithms are based on principles (an axiomatic) laid down by the decision-maker.

    “The important thing here is to emphasize that the choices made on the basis of algorithms are based on principles (an axiomatic) laid down by the decision-maker.”
  • Defining the 'right' fairness specification is highly subjective, value-dependent, and nonstatic, evolving through time.

    “This distinction is critical, as defining the”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Friedler, Scheidegger, and Venkatasubramanian 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S.
Affiliations
  • Haverford College (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Venue
Communications of the ACM
Published
2021-03-22
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
136-143
ISSN
  • 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7317
OpenAlex
W3152436735
Cited by
262
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
55.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
fairness, impossibility results, algorithmic fairness

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