The DOI matches its DataCite record; 13 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning
Open accessAbstract
Recent work on fairness in machine learning has focused on various statistical discrimination criteria and how they trade off. Most of these criteria are observational: They depend only on the joint distribution of predictor, protected attribute, features, and outcome. While convenient to work with, observational criteria have severe inherent limitations that prevent them from resolving matters of fairness conclusively. Going beyond observational criteria, we frame the problem of discrimination based on protected attributes in the language of causal reasoning. This viewpoint shifts attention from "What is the right fairness criterion?" to "What do we want to assume about the causal data generating process?" Through the lens of causality, we make several contributions. First, we crisply articulate why and when observational criteria fail, thus formalizing what was before a matter of opinion. Second, our approach exposes previously ignored subtleties and why they are fundamental to the problem. Finally, we put forward natural causal non-discrimination criteria and develop algorithms that satisfy them.
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
“Although observational fairness criteria have inherent limitations (Kilbertus et al. 2017;Barocas, Hardt, and Narayanan 2019) such as indistinguishability, these criteria are appealing because of their ease of use.”
From Antidiscrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models (2024) · cites this paper as Kilbertus et al. 2017
In the citing paper
“Causal approaches can help to resolve these conceptual roadblocks since they allow to formalize the meaning of what makes observations similar [16].”
From Under the Radar -- Auditing Fairness in ML for Humanitarian Mapping (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
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
Self-citationEquality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02413 · Cited by 2,536
Self-citationAngrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159
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
Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., & O'Connell, J. W. (1975) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.187.4175.398 · Cited by 659
Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052660 · Cited by 632
VanderWeele, T. J., & Robinson, W. R. (2014) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000000105 · Cited by 567
On the (im)possibility of fairness
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.07236 · Cited by 247
Exposing the probabilistic causal structure of discrimination
Bonchi, F., Hajian, S., Mishra, B., & Ramazzotti, D. (2017) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-016-0040-z · Cited by 86
Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the ArtPreprint
Berk, R. A., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M. J., & Roth, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.09207 · Cited by 34
Causal Discrimination Discovery Through Propensity Score Analysis.Preprint
Qureshi, B. M., Kamiran, F., Karim, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 12
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812
Toward Causal Representation Learning
Scholkopf, B., Locatello, F., Bauer, S., Ke, N. R., Kalchbrenner, N., Goyal, A., & Bengio, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2021.3058954 · Cited by 1,170
Self-citationFairness definitions explained
Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness · doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776 · Cited by 1,124
Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., Russell, C., & Silva, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856 · Cited by 995
Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2021) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902 · Cited by 687
Metadata
- Authors
- Kilbertus, N., Rojas-Carulla, M., Parascandolo, G., Hardt, M., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1706.02744
- OpenAlex
- W2624319794
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (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, discrimination, protected characteristics, causal reasoning
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
