Cited by 945Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores

Open access
Kleinberg, Jon, Mullainathan, Sendhil, Raghavan, Manish·2017·Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik

Abstract

Recent discussion in the public sphere about algorithmic classification has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for a probabilistic classification to be fair to different groups. We formalize three fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and we prove that except in highly constrained special cases, there is no method that can satisfy these three conditions simultaneously. Moreover, even satisfying all three conditions approximately requires that the data lie in an approximate version of one of the constrained special cases identified by our theorem. These results suggest some of the ways in which key notions of fairness are incompatible with each other, and hence provide a framework for thinking about the trade-offs between them.

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

DataCite · 10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Each technical definition of fairness carries strong values assumptions which can often be in tension with each other.

    “each technical definition carry strong values assumptions which can often be in tension with each other (Friedler et al., 2016; Kleinberg et al., 2017).”

    From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Kleinberg et al., 2017

    Section 1.2 (p. 6) says the fairness definitions reflect different natural notions of fairness and establishes unavoidable trade-offs between them. Section 1.1 (p. 4) explains the rationale for the conditions, but the paper does not characterize each technical definition as carrying strong values assumptions. That part of the claim goes beyond what our copy states. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing literature often treats fairness and performance as a trade-off problem.

    “Existing literature often treats fairness and performance as a trade-off problem”

    From The Impact of Structured Validation and Audit Frameworks on the Fairness and Efficiency of AI-Driven Hiring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Kleinberg et al., 2017

    Section 1.2 (p. 6) discusses optimizing the accuracy of risk assignments subject to fairness conditions, so the paper connects fairness with performance. But it identifies its central trade-offs as conflicts between different definitions of fairness, not between fairness and performance, and does not establish how often the broader literature frames the issue that way. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many fairness metrics have been proposed, and the most widely used criteria were shown to be incompatible and to present risks for the populations they were meant to protect.

    “Many fairness metrics have been proposed, and the most widely used criteria were shown to be incompatible ([20], [41]), and to present risks for the populations they were meant to protect ([24]).”
  • Commonly used statistical fairness criteria can be mutually incompatible except under restrictive conditions.

    “commonly used statistical fairness criteria can be mutually incompatible except under restrictive conditions”

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

14 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [9][9] Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies , 2015(1):92-112, 2015. -
  2. [14][14] Dean P. Foster and Rakesh V. Vohra. Asymptotic calibration. Biometrika , 85(2):379-390, 1998. -
  3. [29][29] Richard S Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. Learning Fair Representations. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning , 28:325-333, 2013. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
Publisher
Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2962922665
Cited by
943
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 153 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Leibniz international proceedings in informatics (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, risk score, probabilistic classification, fairness conditions, impossibility results

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