CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDiscrimination and Equality LawExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

What is Proxy Discrimination?

Open access
Tschantz, Michael Carl·2022·2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
DOI 10.1145/3531146.3533242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The near universal condemnation of proxy discrimination hides a disagreement over what it is. This work surveys various notions of proxy and proxy discrimination found in prior work and represents them in a common framework. These notions variously turn on statistical dependencies, causal effects, and intentions. It discusses the limitations and uses of each notation and of the concept as a whole.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3531146.3533242

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • One can formulate DAGs representing causal relations such that properties P2 or P5 are satisfied.

    “Nonetheless, one can formulate Directed Acyclical Graphs (DAG) representing causal relations such that, e.g. properties P2 or P5 are satisfied -for causal perspectives on proxy discrimination see Iturria et al. (2024), Côté et al. (2025), Tschantz (2022).”

    From Sensitivity-based measures of discrimination in insurance pricing (2026) · cites this paper as Tschantz (2022)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Larry Alexander. 1992. What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong Biases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141, 1 (1992), 149.
  2. Larry Alexander and Kevin Cole. 1997. Discrimination by Proxy. Constitutional Commentary 14, 602 (1997), 453-463.
  3. Hal Ashton. 2020. Definitions of Intent for AI Derived from Common Law. In 14th International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2020). Available as EasyChair Preprint no. 4422.
  4. Hal Ashton. 2021. Definitions of Intent Suitable for Algorithms. ArXiv 2106.04235 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2106.04235 · DOI
  5. Solon Barocas and Andrew Selbst. 2016. Big Data's Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104 (2016), 671.
  6. Michael E. Bratman. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard Univer- sity Press.
  7. A. Datta, M. Fredrikson, G. Ko, P. Mardziel, and S. Sen. 2007. Use Privacy in Data-Driven Systems. In Proceedings of 24th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, October 2017.
  8. Anupam Datta, Matt Fredrikson, Gihyuk Ko, Piotr Mardziel, and Shayak Sen. 2017. Proxy Non-Discrimination in Data-Driven Systems. ArXiv 1707.08120 (2017). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1707.08120 · DOI
  9. Anupam Datta, Shayak Sen, and Yair Zick. 2016. Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence: Theory and Experiments with Learning Systems. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 598-617. https://doi.org/10. 1109/SP.2016.42 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Daniel C. Dennett. 1987. The Intentional Stance. MIT Press/A Bradford Book.
  11. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness Through Awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (Cambridge, Massachusetts). ACM, 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090255 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cynthia Dwork and Christina Ilvento. 2018. Fairness Under Composition. In 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.ITCS.2019.33 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Cynthia Dwork and Christina Ilvento. 2018. Fairness Under Composition. ArXiv 1806.06122 (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.06122 · DOI
  14. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1979. Questions and Answers to Clarify and Provide a Common Interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 43, Heading II, Question 13.
  15. Michael Feldman, Sorelle A. Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Sydney, NSW, Australia). ACM, 259-268. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2783311 · DOI · Paper page
  16. David Galles and Judea Pearl. 1997. Axioms of causal relevance. Artificial Intelligence 97, 1 (1997), 9-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00047-7 · DOI
  17. Susan S. Grover. 1996. The Business Necessity Defense in Disparate Impact Discrimination Cases. Georgia Law Review 30 (1996), 387-430.
  18. Ursula Hebert-Johnson, Michael Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy Rothblum. 2018. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (Computationally-Identifiable) Masses. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80), Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause (Eds.). PMLR, 1939-1948.
  19. Deborah Hellman. 1998. Two Types of Discrimination: The Familiar and the Forgotten. California Law Review 86 (1998), 315.
  20. Christopher Hitchcock. 1996. A Probabilistic Theory of Second Order Causation. Erkenntnis 44, 3 (1996), 369-377. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20012697
  21. Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness (Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80), Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause (Eds.). PMLR, 2564-2572.
  22. Michael J. Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2019. An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287592 · DOI
  23. Harry Khamis. 2008. Measures of Association: How to Choose? Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 24, 3 (2008), 155-162.
  24. Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Do- minik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I.
  25. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 656-666.
  26. Pauline T. Kim. 2017. Data-Driven Discrimination at Work. William & Mary Law Review 58, Issue 3, Article 4 (2017), 857.
  27. Keith Kirkpatrick. 2016. Battling Algorithmic Bias: How Do We Ensure Algo- rithms Treat Us Fairly? Commun. ACM 59, 10 (2016), 16-17. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2983270 · DOI
  28. Zachary Lipton, Julian McAuley, and Alexandra Chouldechova. 2018. Does Mitigating ML's Impact Disparity Require Treatment Disparity?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 8125-8135.
  29. Zachary C. Lipton, Alexandra Chouldechova, and Julian McAuley. 2018. Does Mitigating ML's Impact Disparity Require Treatment Disparity? ArXiv 1711.07076 (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1711.07076 Version 2. · DOI
  30. Darcy Steeg Morris, Daniel Schwarcz, and Joshua C. Teitelbaum. 2017. Do Credit-Based Insurance Scores Proxy for Income in Predicting Auto Claim Risk? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14, 2 (2017), 397-423. https://doi.org/10. 1111/jels.12151 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jels.12151 Cited page numbers from draft version (June 15, 2016) available at SSRN: https: //ssrn.com/abstract=2685304. · DOI
  31. Cathy O'Neil. 2016. When Not to Trust the Algorithm. Interview published in the Harvard Business Review's Ideacast.
  32. Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality (second ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  33. Dino Pedreshi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. 2008. Discrimination-aware Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA). ACM, 560-568. https://doi.org/10.1145/1401890.1401959 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Devin G. Pope and Justin R. Sydnor. 2011. Implementing Anti-discrimination Policies in Statistical Profiling Models. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3, 3 (Aug. 2011), 206-31. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.3.206 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Anya E.R. Prince and Daniel Schwarcz. 2020. Proxy Discrimination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data. Iowa Law Review 105, 3 (2020), 1257.
  36. Olivier Roy. 2008. Thinking before Acting: Intentions, Logic, Rational Choice. Ph. D. Dissertation. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation; Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  37. Jennifer L. Skeem and Christopher T. Lowenkamp. 2016. Risk, Race, and Recidi- vism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact. Criminology 54, 4 (2016), 680-712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123 · DOI
  38. Florian Tramèr, Vaggelis Atlidakis, Roxana Geambasu, Daniel J. Hsu, Jean-Pierre Hubaux, Mathias Humbert, Ari Juels, and Huang Lin. 2017. FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications. In 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, EuroS&P. IEEE, 401-416.
  39. Michael Carl Tschantz. 2022. What is Proxy Discrimination? ArXiv 2205.05265 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2205.05265 · DOI
  40. Michael Carl Tschantz, Amit Datta, Anupam Datta, and Jeannette M. Wing. 2015. A Methodology for Information Flow Experiments. In Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE.
  41. Michael Carl Tschantz, Anupam Datta, and Jeannette M. Wing. 2012. Formalizing and Enforcing Purpose Restrictions in Privacy Policies. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 176-190.
  42. Robert S. Tschiemer. 1983. Employment Discrimination-The Bottom Line De- fense in Disparate Impact Cases. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 6, 3 (1983), 475-481.
  43. Brian G. Vegetabile. 2021. On the Distinction Between "Conditional Average Treatment Effects" (CATE) and "Individual Treatment Effects" (ITE) Under Ignor- ability Assumptions. ArXiv 2108.04939 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV. 2108.04939 · DOI
  44. Daniel Westreich and James Grimmelmann. 2017. Incomprehensible Discrim- ination. Calif. Law Review Online 7 (2017), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.15779/ Z38707WN47 · DOI
  45. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Rodriguez, Krishna Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2017. From Parity to Preference-based Notions of Fairness in Classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I.
  46. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tschantz, M. C.
Affiliations
International Computer Science Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Tschantz, Michael Carl
ORCID
Tschantz, Michael Carl
Venue
2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-06-20
Pages
1993-2003
DOI
10.1145/3531146.3533242
OpenAlex
W4283160208
Cited by
25
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.71
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1704985)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-15-2-0277)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
proxy discrimination, algorithmic fairness, statistical dependence, causal effects, intention

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