CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 264Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

On the (im)possibility of fairness

Open access
Friedler, Sorelle A., Scheidegger, Carlos, Venkatasubramanian, Suresh·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1609.07236arXiv 1609.07236
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What does it mean for an algorithm to be fair? Different papers use different notions of algorithmic fairness, and although these appear internally consistent, they also seem mutually incompatible. We present a mathematical setting in which the distinctions in previous papers can be made formal. In addition to characterizing the spaces of inputs (the "observed" space) and outputs (the "decision" space), we introduce the notion of a construct space: a space that captures unobservable, but meaningful variables for the prediction. We show that in order to prove desirable properties of the entire decision-making process, different mechanisms for fairness require different assumptions about the nature of the mapping from construct space to decision space. The results in this paper imply that future treatments of algorithmic fairness should more explicitly state assumptions about the relationship between constructs and observations.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1609.07236

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Friedler et al., 2016

  • Recent works expose the impossibility of simultaneously satisfying multiple non-discriminatory objectives, such as equalized opportunity and parity mistreatment.

    “Recent works expose the impossibility of simultaneously satisfying multiple non-discriminatory objectives, such as equalized opportunity and parity mistreatment [10, 19, 27].”

    From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1609.07236
arXiv
1609.07236
OpenAlex
W2524301210
Cited by
247
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
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 › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, fairness definitions, decision space, impossibility results, fairness assumptions

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