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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

See all 945

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
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