The DOI matches its DataCite record; 21 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]).”
From Fairness and explainability in automatic decision-making systems. A challenge for computer science and law (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“commonly used statistical fairness criteria can be mutually incompatible except under restrictive conditions”
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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Kleinberg, Mullainathan and Raghavan (2017) shows theoretically that these notions of fairness are usually incompatible.”
From An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction (2019) · cites this paper as Kleinberg, Mullainathan and Raghavan (2017)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These two notions of fairness are indeed distinct.”
From An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction (2019) · cites this paper as Kleinberg, Mullainathan and Raghavan (2017)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501 · cited 1×
“propose a framework based on a task-specific externally defined similarity metric between individuals, seeking to achieve fairness through the goal that “similar people [be] treated similarly” [11].”
BackgroundDiscrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9185-0 · Cited by 3,371 · cited 1×
“Here too we can ask whether such decision-making is being applied uniformly across different groups of patients [16, 27], and in particular how medical tests may play a differential role for conditions that vary widely in frequency between these groups.”
BackgroundBarocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048 · cited 1×
“Barocas and Selbst survey a range of ways in which data-analysis algorithms can lead to discriminatory outcomes [3], and review articles by Romei and Ruggieri [25] and Zliobaite [30] survey data-analytic and algorithmic methods for measuring discrimination.”
BackgroundEquality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02413 · Cited by 2,536 · cited 1×
“consider the natural analogues of our conditions (B) and (C), balance for the negative and positive classes, in the case of classifiers that output binary “yes/no” predictions rather than real-valued scores as in our case [19].”
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159 · cited 3×
“Also concurrent with our work and that of Hardt et al., Chouldechova [5] and Corbett-Davies et al. [6] (and see also [7]) consider binary prediction subject to these same analogues of the balance conditions for the negative and positive classes, together with a form of calibration adapted to binary prediction (requiri…”
Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact
Feldman, M., Friedler, S. A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783311 · Cited by 1,827 · cited 1×
“This latter global requirement is a version of statistical parity [12, 4, 21, 22].”
BackgroundAlgorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2017) · Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.309809 · Cited by 1,464 · cited 1×
“[7] (and see also [6]) consider binary prediction subject to analogues of the balance conditions for the negative and positive classes, together with a form of calibration adapted to binary prediction.”
BackgroundDiscrimination in online ad delivery
Sweeney, L. (2013) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2447976.2447990 · Cited by 783 · cited 1×
“Second, in a very different domain, researchers have begun to analyze the ways in which different genders and racial groups experience advertising and commercial content on the Internet differently [9, 26].”
BackgroundThree naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification.
Calders, T., & Verwer, S. (2010) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-010-0190-x · Cited by 764 · cited 3×
“Work in these directions has developed learning algorithms that penalize violations of statistical parity [4, 22].”
BackgroundAutomated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination
Datta, A., Tschantz, M. C., & Datta, A. (2015) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.1515/popets-2015-0007 · Cited by 676 · cited 1×
“Second, in a very different domain, researchers have begun to analyze the ways in which different genders and racial groups experience advertising and commercial content on the Internet differently [9, 26].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [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. -
- [14][14] Dean P. Foster and Rakesh V. Vohra. Asymptotic calibration. Biometrika , 85(2):379-390, 1998. -
- [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
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812
“It is important to note that according to [70], it is impossible to satisfy some of the fairness constraints at once except in highly constrained special cases.”
BackgroundOn the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 · Cited by 1,631
“First, there is no way to arbitrate between irreconcilably conflicting definitions using purely mathematical means [14, 42].”
BackgroundAlgorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098095 · Cited by 1,149
Fairness definitions explained
Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness · doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776 · Cited by 1,124
“Well-calibration [16].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialFairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2021) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124118782533 · Cited by 988
“And now the impossibility results: When the base rates differ by protected group and when there is not separation, one cannot have both calibration and equality in the false negative and false positive rates (Kleinberg et al. 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialAI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias
Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilović, A., et al. (2019) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2019.2942287 · Cited by 884
Ferrara, E. (2023) · Sci · doi:10.3390/sci6010003 · Cited by 875
“This survey study delves into the complex and multifaceted issues surrounding fairness and bias in AI, covering the sources of bias, their impacts, and proposed mitigation strategies.”
BackgroundBaker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 · Cited by 993
“Specifically, technical obstacles to the use of fairness metrics manifest in several “impossibility” results (Chouldechova, 2017; Kleinberg et al., 2017; Berk et al., 2018; Loukina et al., 2019; Lee & Kizilcec, 2020, Darlington, 1971), where satisfaction of one statistical criterion of fairness…”
BackgroundRacial disparities in automated speech recognition
Koenecke, A., Nam, A., Lake, E., Nudell, J., Quartey, M., Mengesha, Z., Toups, C., Rickford, J. R., Jurafsky, D., & Goel, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915768117 · Cited by 765
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763
“Practitioners should be careful when adopting fairness metrics as each technical definition carry strong values assumptions which can often be in tension with each other (Friedler et al., 2016; Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundLepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x · Cited by 709
“The results obtained by Kleinberg et al. [36], Choudechova [13], and Corbett-Davies et al. [16] highlight that it is not enough to simply demand algorithmic fairness .”
BackgroundResultAlgorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2021) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902 · Cited by 687
“Notably, scholars have emphasized that the trade-off between different notions of fairness would apply even if a human were the one making the prediction (Kleinberg et al. 2016).”
BackgroundZafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052660 · Cited by 632
“Chouldechova [7] and Kleinberg et al. [18], show that, when the fraction of users with positive class labels differ be-tween members of different sensitive attribute value groups, it is impossible to construct classifiers that are equally well-calibrated (where well-calibration essentially measures…”
BackgroundA comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S., Choudhary, S., Hamilton, E. P., & Roth, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287589 · Cited by 601
“Note that we do not take the absolute value of the difference so that skew in favor of one group versus another can be detected.”
BackgroundA Framework of Potential Sources of Harm Throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle
Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. V. (2021) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 576
Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence
Schwartz, R., Vassilev, A., Greene, K., Perine, L., Burt, A., & Hall, P. (2022) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.1270 · Cited by 548
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646
The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
Floridi, L. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001 · Cited by 682
Bias and Debias in Recommender System: A Survey and Future Directions
Chen, J., Dong, H., Wang, X., Feng, F., Wang, M., & He, X. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3564284 · Cited by 741
“, demographic parity [172], [173], equality of opportunity [174], [175], predictive equality [176], equalized odds [174], calibration within groups [177]); and 4) counterfactual fairness [138].”
BackgroundMitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review
Sun, T., Gaut, A., Tang, S., Huang, Y., ElSherief, M., Zhao, J., Mirza, D., Belding, E., Chang, K.-W., & Wang, W. Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1159 · Cited by 492
“…to NLP; other fields in computer science such as data mining, machine learning, and security also study gender bias (Calders and Verwer, 2010; Feldman et al., 2015; Hardt et al., 2016; Misra et al., 2016; Kleinberg et al., 2016; Pleiss et al., 2017; Beutel et al., 2017; Kilbertus et al., 2017).”
BackgroundFA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm
Zehlike, M., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Hajian, S., Megahed, M., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3132847.3132938 · Cited by 496
“[23] stating that one cannot have a predictor of risk that is well calibrated and satis es statistical parity requirements, may imply that having a fair ranking by construction is not possible.”
BackgroundOptimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention
Calmon, F. P., Wei, D., Vinzamuri, B., Ramamurthy, K. N., & Varshney, K. R. (2017) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 472
Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.01943 · Cited by 1,581
“Furthermore, researchers have shown that it is impossible to satisfy all definitions of fairness at the same time (Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSoK: Towards the Science of security and privacy in machine learning
Papernot, N., McDaniel, P. D., Sinha, A., & Wellman, M. P. (2018) · Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) · Cited by 427
Transparency in Algorithmic and Human Decision-Making: Is There a Double Standard?
Zerilli, J., Knott, A., Maclaurin, J., & Gavaghan, C. (2019) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-018-0330-6 · Cited by 420
“It seems that fairer algorithms are not possible that satisfy any more than one definition of fairness at a time, because B many notions of fairness are in conflict ^ Corbett-Davies et al. 2017, p. 799; see also Hardt et al. 2016; Kleinberg et al. 2017).”
BackgroundSagawa, S., Koh, P. W., Hashimoto, T., & Liang, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.08731 · Cited by 1,178
“Existing approaches to addressing non-uniform accuracy over the data distribution include domain adaptation techniques for known target distributions (Ben-David et al., 2006; Ganin & Lempitsky, 2015) and work in ML fairness (Dwork et al., 2012; Hardt et al., 2016a; Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodFairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search
Geyik, S. C., Ambler, S., & Kenthapadi, K. (2019) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330691 · Cited by 428
Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness
Kearns, M., Neel, S., Roth, A., & Wu, Z. S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05144 · Cited by 469
Lai, V., & Tan, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287590 · Cited by 377
“Human decision makers with assistance from machines further complicate the current discussions on the issue of fairness in algorithmic decision making [12, 28, 38].”
BackgroundA Reductions Approach to Fair ClassificationPreprint
Agarwal, A., Beygelzimer, A., Dudı́k, M., Langford, J. C., & Wallach, H. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.02453 · Cited by 467
“For example, equality of opportunity (Hardt et al., 2016) (also known as balance for the positive class ; Kleinberg et al., 2017), balance for the negative class (Klein-berg et al., 2017), error-rate balance (Chouldechova, 2017), overall accuracy equality (Berk et al., 2017), and treatment equality…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPrinciples and methods for transferring polygenic risk scores across global populations
Kachuri, L., Chatterjee, N., Hirbo, J. B., Schaid, D. J., Martin, I. K., Kullo, I. J., Kenny, E. E., Paşaniuc, B., Auer, P. L., Conomos, M. P., et al. (2023) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-023-00637-2 · Cited by 366
“An additional challenge relates to defining what fairness means in the context of PRSs and prioritizing trade-offs, as simultaneously satisfying all constraints may not be feasible 127 .”
Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing
Brayne, S. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190684099.001.0001 · Cited by 334
On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness
Binns, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372864 · Cited by 312
“corresponds to the actual frequency of the event happening) [35].”
BackgroundAlgorithmic fairness in education
Kizilcec, R. F., & Lee, H. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429329067-10 · Cited by 339
Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness
Hanna, A., Denton, R., Smart, A., & Smith-Loud, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372826 · Cited by 295
Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making
Žliobaitė, I. (2017) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-017-0506-1 · Cited by 272
“A forthcoming study by Kleinberg et al. (2017) specifies three fairness conditions for binary classification with the binary protected characteristic variable, which are closely related to equalized odds.”
BackgroundFairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature
Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221115189 · Cited by 316
“This is particularly intriguing as some formal fairness definitions cannot coexist (Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialCheXclusion: Fairness gaps in deep chest X-ray classifiers
Seyyed-Kalantari, L., Liu, G., McDermott, M., Chen, I. Y., & Ghassemi, M. (2020) · Biocomputing 2021 · doi:10.1142/9789811232701_0022 · Cited by 275
“While there are multiple technical fairness definitions [8, 10, 17, 50], and different fairness notions are not always simultaneously achievable [8, 23], we target the equality of opportunity notion across the protected attributes of sex, age, race and insurance type, and focus on two aims:…”
BackgroundAlgorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions
Fazelpour, S., & Danks, D. J. (2021) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12760 · Cited by 338
“…strategies can lead to significant social costs depending on the degree to which fairness gains are ‘traded off’ for epistemically valuable measures (e.g., predictive accuracy) that also matter for societal welfare (Corbett ‐ Davies, Pierson, et al., 2017; Gendler, 2011; Kleinberg et al., 2016).”
BackgroundResultFriedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3433949 · Cited by 262
Grosz, B. J., Grant, D. G., Vredenburgh, K., Behrends, J., Hu, L. J., Simmons, A., & Waldo, J. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3330794 · Cited by 249
“11 After giving a brief presentation on theories of wrongful discrimination (for which chapter 1 of Hellman 9 provides an overview), the Embedded EthiCS teaching assistant presented a case study in which an employer’s hiring practices generated outcomes that correlated with the race of job…”
Vallor, S. (2024) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197759066.001.0001 · Cited by 264
Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guarantees
Celis, L. E., Huang, L., Keswani, V., & Vishnoi, N. K. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287586 · Cited by 231
“Unfortunately, this does come at a loss of accuracy, likely due to the difficulty of simultaneously achieving accuracy and multiple fairness metrics [16, 41].”
BackgroundA clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape
Castelnovo, A., Crupi, R., Greco, G., Regoli, D., Penco, I. G., & Cosentini, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07939-1 · Cited by 292
“…it is not possible except in trivial or degenerate scenarios, as stated by the following propositions drawn from the literature (Chouldechova, 2017; Kleinberg et al., 2016; Barocas et al., 2019; Räz, 2021; Simoiu et al., 2017): 1. if Y is binary, Y 6⊥⊥ S and Y 6⊥⊥ A, then separation and…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEthics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitations
Mökander, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00319-4 · Cited by 198
“When designing and operating ADMS, tensions may arise between different ethical principles for which there are no fixed solutions (Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement
Berk, R. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342 · Cited by 213
Grgic-Hlaca, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3178876.3186138 · Cited by 207
“s of direct and indirect discrimination and provide mechanisms [17, 21, 32, 40, 47, 60–62] for non-discriminatory learning, as well as examining the feasibility of making non-discriminatory decisions [12, 14, 24, 35]. Existing studies of algorithmic fairness are largely normative (prescriptive) in nature, i.e., they b…”
BackgroundAddressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging
Lara, M. A. R., Echeveste, R., & Ferrante, E. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32186-3 · Cited by 224
Fairness in credit scoring: Assessment, implementation and profit implications
Kozodoi, N., Jacob, J., & Lessmann, S. (2022) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.023 · Cited by 198
“8 · P ( 𝑠 ( 𝑋 | 𝑥 𝑎 = 0 ) > 𝜏 ) , where { 𝑥 = 0 } is the privileged group (Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
How Algorithms Discriminate Based on Data They Lack: Challenges, Solutions, and Policy Implications
Williams, B. A., Brooks, C., & Shmargad, Y. (2018) · Journal of Information Policy · doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.8.2018.0078 · Cited by 224
Speicher, T., Heidari, H., Grgic-Hlaca, N., Gummadi, K. P., Singla, A., Weller, A., & Zafar, M. B. (2018) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3219819.3220046 · Cited by 207
“, statistical parity [9, 12, 23], disparate impact [13, 41], equality of opportunity [17], calibration [23], and disparate mistreatment [40]).”
BackgroundPredictive Inequity in Object DetectionPreprint
Wilson, B., Hoffman, J., & Morgenstern, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.11097 · Cited by 330
“…of “fairness” of ML systems have been proposed (e.g., statistical parity, equality of false positives or negatives, calibration, individual fairness (Hardt et al., 2016; Dwork et al., 2012; Kleinberg et al., 2016; Chouldechova, 2017)), many of them involve some per-instance loss function.”
BackgroundMultiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classification
Kim, M. P., Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314287 · Cited by 193
Why is my classifier discriminatory?
Chen, I., Johansson, F. D., & Sontag, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.12002 · Cited by 185
“A relaxed version of this result (Kleinberg et al., 2016) applies to the discrimination level Γ .”
MethodEvaluation and Mitigation of Racial Bias in Clinical Machine Learning Models: Scoping Review
Huang, J., Galal, G., Etemadi, M., & Vaidyanathan, M. (2022) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/36388 · Cited by 186
“Moreover, there are inherent trade-offs to the use of different fairness metrics [25], and static fairness criteria may even lead to delayed harms in the long term [43].”
The State of the Art in Enhancing Trust in Machine Learning Models with the Use of Visualizations
Chatzimparmpas, A., Martins, R. M., Jusufi, I., Kucher, K., Fabrice Rossi, A., & Kerren, A. (2020) · Computer Graphics Forum · doi:10.1111/cgf.14034 · Cited by 204
“Thus, ML algorithms must make some compromises between those criteria which justify the strong need for visually monitoring/analyzing such trade-offs.”
BackgroundGrgić-Hlača, N., Zafar, M. B., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11296 · Cited by 184
“This measure is inspired by recent studies related to fairness in criminal risk assessment (Kleinberg, Mullainathan, and Raghavan 2017; Angwin et al. 2016; Zafar et al. 2017a).”
MethodDemocratizing Algorithmic Fairness
Wong, P.-H. (2020) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00355-w · Cited by 182
Srivastava, M., Heidari, H., & Krause, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330664 · Cited by 179
“, 2015], and calibration [Kleinberg et al., 2017].”
BackgroundInfluentialThe European artificial intelligence strategy: implications and challenges for digital health
Cohen, I. G., Evgeniou, T., Gerke, S., & Minssen, T. (2020) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30112-6 · Cited by 171
An empirical characterization of fair machine learning for clinical risk prediction
Pfohl, S. R., Foryciarz, A., & Shah, N. H. (2021) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103621 · Cited by 164
Addressing algorithmic bias and the perpetuation of health inequities: An AI bias aware framework
Agarwal, R., Bjarnadottir, M., Rhue, L., Dugas, M., Crowley, K., Clark, J., & Gao, G. (2023) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100702 · Cited by 170
Aligning AI With Shared Human Values
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Critch, A., Li, J., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.02275 · Cited by 517
iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making
Lahoti, P., Gummadi, K. P., & Weikum, G. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2019.00121 · Cited by 175
“Other defini-tions of group fairness include calibration [12, 19], disparate mistreatment [26], and counterfactual fairness [20].”
BackgroundFeuerriegel, S., Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2020) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-020-00650-3 · Cited by 196
“Other definitions of group-level fairness in AI are tailored to errors in predictions (e.g., Corbett-Davies and Goel 2018; Hardt and Price 2016; Kleinberg et al. 2017).”
BackgroundDistributionally Robust Neural Networks
Sagawa, S., Koh, P. W., Hashimoto, T., & Liang, P. (2020) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 164
The Moral Psychology of Artificial Intelligence
Bonnefon, J.-F., Rahwan, I., & Shariff, A. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030123-113559 · Cited by 151
Johndrow, J. E., & Lum, K. (2019) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1201 · Cited by 141
Fairness in rankings and recommendations: an overview
Pitoura, E., Stefanidis, K., & Koutrika, G. (2021) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-021-00697-y · Cited by 177
DEVELOPING COMPETITION LAW FOR COLLUSION BY AUTONOMOUS ARTIFICIAL AGENTS†
Harrington, J. E. (2017) · Journal of Competition Law & Economics · doi:10.1093/joclec/nhy016 · Cited by 166
A survey on bias in visual datasets
Fabbrizzi, S., Papadopoulos, S., Ntoutsi, E., & Kompatsiaris, I. Y. (2022) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2022.103552 · Cited by 164
On statistical criteria of algorithmic fairness
Hedden, B. (2021) · Philosophy & Public Affairs · doi:10.1111/papa.12189 · Cited by 145
“This is the case, for example, in Agarwal et al. (2018), Berk et al. (2018), Corbett-Davies et al. (2017), Dwork et al. (2012), and Kleinberg et al. (2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialRepresentation Bias in Data: A Survey on Identification and Resolution Techniques
Shahbazi, N., Yin, L., Asudeh, A., & Jagadish, H. V. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3588433 · Cited by 178
“[69] prove when there is an unequal base rate in data (i.”
BackgroundFairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04053 · Cited by 646
Ethical machines: The human-centric use of artificial intelligence
Lepri, B., Oliver, N., & Pentland, A. (2021) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102249 · Cited by 149
“A similar result was discussed by Kleinberg et al. (Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTan, S., Caruana, R., Hooker, G., & Lou, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3278721.3278725 · Cited by 138
Inherent Trade-Offs in Algorithmic Fairness
Kleinberg, J. (2018) · Abstracts of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/3219617.3219634 · Cited by 125
“We consider several of the key fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and discuss recent research establishing inherent trade-offs between these conditions [3, 4, 8, 10, 14].”
BackgroundSelf-citationFair Clustering Through FairletsPreprint
Chierichetti, F., Kumar, R., Lattanzi, S., & Vassilvitskii, S. (2018) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.05733 · Cited by 578
“More recent work by Corbett-Davies et al. (2017) and Kleinberg et al. (2017b) also shows that some of the desired properties of fairness may be incompatible with each other.”
BackgroundHurtful words: quantifying biases in clinical contextual word embeddings
Zhang, H., Lu, A. X., Abdalla, M., McDermott, M., & Ghassemi, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning · doi:10.1145/3368555.3384448 · Cited by 122
“” the model is, we must turn to a definition of fairness from the literature. There are many technical definitions of fairness, and specific arguments for or against using each in healthcare settings [26, 35, 51]. In this work, we examine the demographic parity, equality of opportunity for the positive class, and equa…”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence and Music: Open Questions of Copyright Law and Engineering Praxis
Sturm, B. L. T., Iglesias, M., Ben-Tal, O., Miron, M., & Gómez, E. (2019) · Arts · doi:10.3390/arts8030115 · Cited by 82
“…against certain individuals based on a set of protected attributes like gender, race, and age.37 Group fairness has been proposed as a category of algorithmic fairness (Kleinberg et al. 2017), which consists of more than 21 metrics to measure discrimination, some of which are contradictory.”
BackgroundInfluentialAn Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious CorrelationsPreprint
Sagawa, S., Raghunathan, A., Koh, P. W., & Liang, P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.04345 · Cited by 141
“, 2019), and fair algorithms (Dwork et al., 2012; Hardt et al., 2016; Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
BackgroundAlgorithmic Fairness from a Non-ideal Perspective
Fazelpour, S., & Lipton, Z. C. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3375627.3375828 · Cited by 136
“However, progress has been hindered by disagreements over the appropriate conceptualization and formalization of fairness [7, 30, 21, 5].”
BackgroundHuman Decision Making with Machine Assistance: An Experiment on Bailing and Jailing
Grgić-Hlača, N., Engel, C., & Gummadi, K. P. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359280 · Cited by 113
“…delegated to machines [1, 4, 6, 31] and has extensively studied the distributive [26, 29, 39, 43, 49, 50, 56, 65, 73–75] and procedural [36, 38] fairness of machine decision-making [9, 14, 18, 19, 32, 46], as well as the feasibility of making fair decisions [14, 19, 32, 46], as reviewed in [9, 18].”
BackgroundUsing Artificial Intelligence to classify Jobseekers: The Accuracy-Equity Trade-off
Desiere, S., & Struyven, L. (2020) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279420000203 · Cited by 129
Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based AlgorithmsPreprint
Agarwal, A., Dudı́k, M., & Wu, Z. S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.12843 · Cited by 131
“Copyright 2019 by the author(s). have been proposed (Berk et al., 2017; Chouldechova, 2017; Hardt et al., 2016; Kleinberg et al., 2017), leading to a variety of algorithms that aim to satisfy them (see, e.g., Corbett-Davies & Goel, 2018, for an overview of the literature).”
BackgroundFairness and accountability of AI in disaster risk management: Opportunities and challenges
Gevaert, C. M., Carman, M., Rosman, B., Georgiadou, Y., & Soden, R. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100363 · Cited by 127
“11 Indeed, Kleinberg et al. 12 go so far as to prove theoretically that some commonly accepted definitions of fairness are incompatible.”
BackgroundPolicy advice and best practices on bias and fairness in AI
Álvarez, J. M., Colmenarejo, A. B., Elobaid, A., Fabbrizzi, S., Fahimi, M., Ferrara, A., Ghodsi, S., Mougan, C., Papageorgiou, I. T., Lobo, P. R., et al. (2024) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09746-w · Cited by 147
“However, theoretical results state that it is impossible to satisfy different fairness notions at the same time (Chouldechova, 2017; Kleinberg et al., 2017).”
Discovering Fair Representations in the Data Domain
Quadrianto, N., Sharmanska, V., & Thomas, O. (2019) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00842 · Cited by 116
“Much work has been done on mathematical definitions of fairness (e.g. [28, 8]).”
BackgroundPessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24628-9_37 · Cited by 235
Begby, E. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852834.001.0001 · Cited by 107
Does Object Recognition Work for Everyone?Preprint
DeVries, T., Misra, I., Wang, C., & van der Maaten, L. J. P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.02659 · Cited by 141
“Moreover, several impossibility results exist: for instance, equalized odds is incompatible with other formulations of fairness [7, 10, 27], and it is impossible to achieve equalized odds using a calibrated classifier without withholding a randomly selected subset of the classifier’s predictions [35].”
BackgroundThe Ethics of Algorithms: Key Problems and SolutionsPreprint
Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Roberts, H., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3662302 · Cited by 101
FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness
Albarghouthi, A., D'Antoni, L., Drews, S., & Nori, A. V. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3133904 · Cited by 94
“Nonetheless, the rise of automated decisionmaking has prompted the introduction of a number of formal definitions of fairness, and their utility within different contexts is being actively studied and contested [Dwork et al. 2012; Feldman et al. 2015; Friedler et al. 2016; Hardt et al. 2016; Kleinberg et al. 2017; Rug…”
BackgroundFairness Metrics: A Comparative Analysis
Garg, P., Villasenor, J. D., & Foggo, V. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata50022.2020.9378025 · Cited by 113
“This metric has also been termed test-fairness [2] [8] [10] and as matching conditional frequencies [7] There is another related metric termed well-calibration ( [8]) or calibration within groups ( [1], [3]) that imposes an additional, more stringent condition.”
InfluentialPredicting the replicability of social science lab experiments
Altmejd, A., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Huber, J., Imai, T., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., & Camerer, C. F. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225826 · Cited by 94
“could still be captured through other features [50].”
BackgroundSocially Fair k-Means Clustering
Ghadiri, M., Samadi, S., & Vempala, S. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445906 · Cited by 95
“Many formulations of fairness have been proposed for supervised learning and specifically for classification tasks [18, 20, 25, 44].”
BackgroundCounterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness
Coston, A., Mishler, A., Kennedy, E. H., & Chouldechova, A. (2020) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372851 · Cited by 107
“Positive predictive parity requires the precision (also known as positive predictive value) to be independent of the protected attribute, and negative predictive parity requires the negative predictive value to be independent of the protected attribute [7, 28].”
BackgroundBalayn, A., Lofi, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2021) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-021-00671-8 · Cited by 98
“Until now, few theoretical works [38,95] have been proposed that investigate such feasibility of requirements.”
BackgroundAn Overview of Fairness in Clustering
Chhabra, A., Masalkovaitė, K., & Mohapatra, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3114099 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- 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
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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