Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification
Open accessAbstract
Algorithmic decision making systems are ubiquitous across a wide variety of online as well as offline services. These systems rely on complex learning methods and vast amounts of data to optimize the service functionality, satisfaction of the end user and profitability. However, there is a growing concern that these automated decisions can lead, even in the absence of intent, to a lack of fairness, i.e., their outcomes can disproportionately hurt (or, benefit) particular groups of people sharing one or more sensitive attributes (e.g., race, sex). In this paper, we introduce a flexible mechanism to design fair classifiers by leveraging a novel intuitive measure of decision boundary (un)fairness. We instantiate this mechanism with two well-known classifiers, logistic regression and support vector machines, and show on real-world data that our mechanism allows for a fine-grained control on the degree of fairness, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.
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?
Algorithms that constrain disparities in treatment and impact could negatively affect females with short hair and/or programming skills because of those features' association with males.
“For instance, the algorithms that put constraints on the aforementioned disparities in treatment and impact [17, 41, 61] could negatively affect females with short hair and/or programming skills, because of those features' (fair or unfair) association with males [32].”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [61]
Several methods have been proposed to train machine learning models that prevent a combination of disparate treatment and impact.
“Several methods have been proposed to train machine learning models that prevent a combination of disparate treatment and impact [17, 41, 61].”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [61]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 645
- Authors
- Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M. G., & Gummadi, K. P.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2015
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1507.05259
- OpenAlex
- W2949200088
- Cited by
- 645
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 144 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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, fair classification, sensitive attributes, algorithmic decision-making, logistic regression, support vector machine, automated decision systems
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
