The DOI matches its DataCite record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the (im)possibility of fairness
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
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 Friedler et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 · Cited by 6,911
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
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
Self-citation(2013) · Cited by 1,126
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x15584327 · Cited by 993
Three 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
Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries
Kearns, M. J. (1998) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/293347.293351 · Cited by 679
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16822 · Cited by 540 · cited 1×
“Personal qualities, such as self-control, growth mind-set, and grit, are known to be determining factors in later success [2].”
BackgroundGromov–Wasserstein Distances and the Metric Approach to Object Matching
Mémoli, F. (2011) · Foundations of Computational Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10208-011-9093-5 · Cited by 519
Classifying without discriminating
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2009) · 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication · doi:10.1109/ic4.2009.4909197 · Cited by 409
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Self-citationInherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017) · Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43 · Cited by 943
“[15] defines two axiomatic pro pe ties of feature generation and shows that no mechanism can be fair under these two properties.”
BackgroundAI 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
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 · Cited by 882
“…actually mean when there are currently a myriad definitions (Ananny and Crawford 2018; Bibal and Frénay 2016; Doshi-Velez and Kim 2017; Friedler et al. 2016; Guidotti et al. 2018; Kleinberg et al. 2016; Overdorf et al. 2018; Turilli and Floridi 2009) is standard fare for individuals…”
BackgroundSocial 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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, 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
