Fairness Through Awareness
Open accessAbstract
We study fairness in classification, where individuals are classified, e.g., admitted to a university, and the goal is to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their membership in some group, while maintaining utility for the classifier (the university). The main conceptual contribution of this paper is a framework for fair classification comprising (1) a (hypothetical) task-specific metric for determining the degree to which individuals are similar with respect to the classification task at hand; (2) an algorithm for maximizing utility subject to the fairness constraint, that similar individuals are treated similarly. We also present an adaptation of our approach to achieve the complementary goal of "fair affirmative action," which guarantees statistical parity (i.e., the demographics of the set of individuals receiving any classification are the same as the demographics of the underlying population), while treating similar individuals as similarly as possible. Finally, we discuss the relationship of fairness to privacy: when fairness implies privacy, and how tools developed in the context of differential privacy may be applied to fairness.
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
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?
AI principles are mostly vague and thereby difficult to interpret.
“First, the principles are mostly vague and thereby difficult to interpret (e.g., the accountability principle “individuals and organizations need to be held to account,” does not provide an expansive explanation of how this would look in practice).52,53”
From A high-level overview of AI ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [53]
AI principles are incongruent, i.e., within the same set of principles, the individual principles contradict one another.
“Second, the principles are incongruent, i.e., within the same set of principles, the individual principles contradict one another (e.g., both the principle of “openness” and the principle of “privacy” are asserted together, where respect for one is likely to come at the cost of implementation and respect for the other).”
From A high-level overview of AI ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [53]
There is considerable lack of clarity regarding terminology/concepts in AI principles.
“Third, there is considerable lack of clarity regarding terminology/concepts (e.g., principles of accountability, transparency, and openness are complimentary and, in some respects, synonymous expressions).”
From A high-level overview of AI ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 55
- Authors
- Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- IBM Research - Almaden (US)
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2011
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1104.3913
- OpenAlex
- W2949135123
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, fair classification, discrimination, similarity measures, statistical parity, affirmative action, differential privacy
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
