CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 995Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Discrimination and Equality Law

Counterfactual Fairness

Open access
Kusner, Matt J., Loftus, Joshua R., Russell, Chris, Silva, Ricardo·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856arXiv 1703.06856
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Machine learning can impact people with legal or ethical consequences when it is used to automate decisions in areas such as insurance, lending, hiring, and predictive policing. In many of these scenarios, previous decisions have been made that are unfairly biased against certain subpopulations, for example those of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since this past data may be biased, machine learning predictors must account for this to avoid perpetuating or creating discriminatory practices. In this paper, we develop a framework for modeling fairness using tools from causal inference. Our definition of counterfactual fairness captures the intuition that a decision is fair towards an individual if it is the same in (a) the actual world and (b) a counterfactual world where the individual belonged to a different demographic group. We demonstrate our framework on a real-world problem of fair prediction of success in law school.

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 · 10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856

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.

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?

  • Individual fairness measures involve pre-specifying the subset of features that define individual similarity in the context of the task.

    “Individual fairness measures involve pre-specifying the subset of features that de fi ne individual similarity in the context of the task.”

    From Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated <scp>decision‐making</scp> (2022) · cites this paper as Kusner et al. 2017

    Section 2.1 (p. 2) defines individual fairness using a similarity metric that must be carefully chosen with domain knowledge. Section 3 (p. 3) gives a subset of attributes as one way to define similarity, but does not say individual fairness measures generally require pre-specifying a subset of features. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most bias detection methods assume access to demographic groups.

    “Most bias detection methods assume access to demographic groups (Elliot et al., 2009; Hardt et al., 2016; Kusner et al., 2017; Kleinberg et al., 2018; Bellamy et al., 2019; Delaney et al., 2024).”

    From Auditing a Dutch Public Sector Risk Profiling Algorithm Using an Unsupervised Bias Detection Tool (2025) · cites this paper as Kusner et al., 2017

    The Background (p. 2) treats protected attributes as part of the fairness problem, and §2.1 Fairness (p. 2) defines demographic parity and equality of opportunity by comparing groups identified by a protected attribute. These examples support the need for demographic-group information in some fairness assessments, but the paper does not establish that most bias detection methods assume access to it. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Counterfactual fairness is an individual-level definition based on causal methods and is close to relaxed demographic parity.

    “The notion of counterfactual fairness was introduced by Kusner et al. (2017) based on causal methods and it is an individual-level definition, and they also contrasted their fairness criteria with individual fairness or group fairness (i.e., FTA and DP).Counterfactual fairness was referred to as counterfactual demographic parity by Barocas, Hardt, and Narayanan (2019) because of its close”

    From Antidiscrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models (2024) · cites this paper as Kusner et al. 2017

  • The unawareness price may produce indirect discrimination.

    “However, the unawareness price may produce indirect discrimination, as was discussed in Section 1; see also Kusner et al. (2017).”

    From Discrimination-Free Insurance Pricing (2022) · cites this paper as Kusner et al. (2017)

  • Counterfactual fairness is the main criterion used in this study.

    “Particularly, Kusner et al. [19] introduce the notion of counterfactual fairness which is the main criterion we use in this study.”

    From Under the Radar -- Auditing Fairness in ML for Humanitarian Mapping (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

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.

References 33 · Cited by 995

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1][1] Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., and Roth, A. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. arXiv:1703.09207v1 , 2017. - · arXiv
  2. [2][2] Bollen, K. Structural Equations with Latent Variables . John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1989. -
  3. [3][3] Bollen, K. and (eds.), J. Long. Testing Structural Equation Models . SAGE Publications, 1993. -
  4. [5][5] Brennan, Tim, Dieterich, William, and Ehret, Beate. Evaluating the predictive validity of the compas risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 36(1):21-40, 2009. -
  5. [6][6] Calders, Toon and Verwer, Sicco. Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 21(2):277-292, 2010. -
  6. [8][8] Dawid, A. P. Causal inference without counterfactuals. Journal of the American Statistical Association , pp. 407-448, 2000. -
  7. [9][9] DeDeo, Simon. Wrong side of the tracks: Big data and protected categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.4643 , 2014. - · arXiv
  8. [10][10] Dwork, Cynthia, Hardt, Moritz, Pitassi, Toniann, Reingold, Omer, and Zemel, Richard. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference , pp. 214-226. ACM, 2012. -
  9. [11][11] Glymour, C. and Glymour, M. R. Commentary: Race and sex are causes. Epidemiology , 25(4): 488-490, 2014. -
  10. [12][12] Grgic-Hlaca, Nina, Zafar, Muhammad Bilal, Gummadi, Krishna P, and Weller, Adrian. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. NIPS Symposium on Machine Learning and the Law , 2016. -
  11. [13][13] Halpern, J. Actual Causality . MIT Press, 2016. -
  12. [14][14] Hardt, Moritz, Price, Eric, Srebro, Nati, et al. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 3315-3323, 2016. -
  13. [15][15] Johnson, Kory D, Foster, Dean P, and Stine, Robert A. Impartial predictive modeling: Ensuring fairness in arbitrary models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00528 , 2016. - · arXiv
  14. [16][16] Joseph, Matthew, Kearns, Michael, Morgenstern, Jamie, Neel, Seth, and Roth, Aaron. Rawlsian fairness for machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09559 , 2016. - · arXiv
  15. [19][19] Kamishima, Toshihiro, Akaho, Shotaro, and Sakuma, Jun. Fairness-aware learning through regularization approach. In Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on , pp. 643-650. IEEE, 2011. -
  16. [20][20] Khandani, Amir E, Kim, Adlar J, and Lo, Andrew W. Consumer credit-risk models via machine-learning algorithms. Journal of Banking &amp; Finance , 34(11):2767-2787, 2010. -
  17. [23][23] Lewis, D. Counterfactuals . Harvard University Press, 1973. -
  18. [24][24] Louizos, Christos, Swersky, Kevin, Li, Yujia, Welling, Max, and Zemel, Richard. The variational fair autoencoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00830 , 2015. - · arXiv
  19. [26][26] Mooij, J., Janzing, D., Peters, J., and Scholkopf, B. Regression by dependence minimization and its application to causal inference in additive noise models. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 745-752, 2009. -
  20. [27][27] Nabi, R. and Shpitser, I. Fair inference on outcomes. arXiv:1705.10378v1 , 2017. - · arXiv
  21. [28][28] Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference . Cambridge University Press, 2000. -
  22. [29][29] Pearl, J., Glymour, M., and Jewell, N. Causal Inference in Statistics: a Primer . Wiley, 2016. -
  23. [31][31] Peters, J., Mooij, J. M., Janzing, D., and Schölkopf, B. Causal discovery with continuous additive noise models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15:2009-2053, 2014. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/peters14a.html . -
  24. [32][32] Russell, C., Kusner, M., Loftus, J., and Silva, R. When worlds collide: integrating different counterfactual assumptions in fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 31, 2017. -
  25. [33][33] Silva, R. and Evans, R. Causal inference through a witness protection program. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17(56):1-53, 2016. -
  26. [36][36] Zafar, Muhammad Bilal, Valera, Isabel, Rodriguez, Manuel Gomez, and Gummadi, Krishna P. Learning fair classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.05259 , 2015. - · arXiv
  27. [37][37] Zafar, Muhammad Bilal, Valera, Isabel, Rodriguez, Manuel Gomez, and Gummadi, Krishna P. Fairness beyond disparate treatment &amp; disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08452 , 2016. - · arXiv
  28. [38][38] Zemel, Richard S, Wu, Yu, Swersky, Kevin, Pitassi, Toniann, and Dwork, Cynthia. Learning fair representations. ICML (3) , 28:325-333, 2013. -
  29. [39][39] Zliobaite, Indre. A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00148 , 2015. · arXiv

Authors
Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., Russell, C., & Silva, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • The Alan Turing Institute (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856
arXiv
1703.06856
OpenAlex
W2952517774
Cited by
995
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 211 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 5 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P022529/1, N510129, EP/P022529, EP/N510129/, EP/N510129/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
Keywords
counterfactual fairness, algorithmic fairness, causal inference, algorithmic discrimination, demographic bias, automated decision-making

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