CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 444Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Game Theory and Voting Systems

The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness

Open access
Corbett-Davies, Sam, Gaebler, Johann D., Nilforoshan, Hamed, Shroff, Ravi, Goel, Sharad·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1808.00023arXiv 1808.00023
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The field of fair machine learning aims to ensure that decisions guided by algorithms are equitable. Over the last decade, several formal, mathematical definitions of fairness have gained prominence. Here we first assemble and categorize these definitions into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions typically result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies. For example, in the case of college admissions, adhering to popular formal conceptions of fairness would simultaneously result in lower student-body diversity and a less academically prepared class, relative to what one could achieve by explicitly tailoring admissions policies to achieve desired outcomes. In this sense, requiring that these fairness definitions hold can, perversely, harm the very groups they were designed to protect. In contrast to axiomatic notions of fairness, we argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences, akin to the equitable design of policy. We conclude by listing several open challenges in fair machine learning and offering strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals.

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.1808.00023

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?

  • When machine learning is used to predict crime in pre-trial detention problems, crime is never measured and the algorithm is instead trained to predict arrests.

    “when machine learning is used to predict crime in pre-trial detention problems, crime is in fact never measured and the algorithm is instead trained to predict arrests ([24], [49]).”

    From Fairness and explainability in automatic decision-making systems. A challenge for computer science and law (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    Section 5.2.3 (p. 36) says pretrial risk assessment seeks to predict crime, but typically observes only crimes resulting in an arrest or conviction; these are imperfect proxies for the underlying act. This supports the measurement concern, but not the categorical claims that crime is never measured or that algorithms are trained specifically on arrests rather than convictions as well. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many fairness metrics have been proposed, and the most widely used criteria were shown to be incompatible and to present risks for the populations they were meant to protect.

    “Many fairness metrics have been proposed, and the most widely used criteria were shown to be incompatible ([20], [41]), and to present risks for the populations they were meant to protect ([24]).”

    From Fairness and explainability in automatic decision-making systems. A challenge for computer science and law (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

  • Our understanding of a mechanism typically relies on theory or exercises with researcher-created algorithms.

    “Our understanding of a mechanism therefore typically relies on theory or exercises with researcher-created algorithms ( 10 -13 ).”

    From Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

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 50 · Cited by 444

Research works printed but not linked: 106

  1. Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dud´ ık, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. A reductions approach to fair classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2018.
  2. Rahul Aggarwal, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Robert W. Yeh, Yang Song, Nicholas Chiu, Rishi K. Wadhera, Changyu Shen, and Dhruv S. Kazi. Diabetes screening by race and ethnicity in the United States: Equivalent body mass index and age thresholds. Annals of Internal Medicine , 175(6):765-773, 2022.
  3. Robert M Anderson and William R Zame. Genericity with infinitely many parameters. Advances in Theoretical Economics , 1(1):1-62, 2001.
  4. Shamena Anwar and Hanming Fang. An alternative test of racial prejudice in motor vehicle searches: Theory and evidence. The American Economic Review , 2006.
  5. Idir Arab, Paulo Eduardo Oliveira, and Tilo Wiklund. Convex transform order of beta distributions with some consequences. Statistica Neerlandica , 75(3):238-256, 2021.
  6. Imanol Arrieta-Ibarra, Paman Gujral, Jonathan Tannen, Mark Tygert, and Cherie Xu. Metrics of calibration for probabilistic predictions. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 2022.
  7. Kenneth Arrow. The theory of discrimination. In Discrimination in labor markets . Princeton University Press, 1973.
  8. Jack M Balkin and Reva B Siegel. The American civil rights tradition: Anticlassification or antisubordination. Issues in Legal Scholarship , 2(1), 2003.
  9. Michelle Bao, Angela Zhou, Samantha Zottola, Brian Brubach, Sarah Desmarais, Aaron Horowitz, Kristian Lum, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. It's COMPASlicated: The messy relationship between RAI datasets and algorithmic fairness benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05498 , 2021. · arXiv
  10. Chelsea Barabas, Madars Virza, Karthik Dinakar, Joichi Ito, and Jonathan Zittrain. Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages 62-76, 2018.
  11. Gary S Becker. The Economics of Discrimination . University of Chicago Press, 1957.
  12. Richard Berk. Criminal Justice Forecasts of Risk: A Machine Learning Approach . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  13. Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research , 50(1):3-44, 2021.
  14. Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review , 94(4):991-1013, 2004.
  15. Patrick Billingsley. Probability and Measure . Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, third edition, 1995. ISBN 0-471-00710-2. A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
  16. Avrim Blum and Kevin Stangl. Recovering from biased data: Can fairness constraints improve accuracy? arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01094 , 2019. · arXiv
  17. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages 77-91, 2018.
  18. William Cai, Johann Gaebler, Nikhil Garg, and Sharad Goel. Fair allocation through selective information acquisition. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 22-28, 2020.
  19. William Cai, Ro Encarnacion, Bobbie Chern, Sam Corbett-Davies, Miranda Bogen, Stevie Bergman, and Sharad Goel. Adaptive sampling strategies to construct equitable training datasets. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 2022a.
  20. Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 21(2):277-292, 2010.
  21. Silvia Chiappa. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 33, pages 7801-7808, 2019.
  22. Alex Chohlas-Wood, Joe Nudell, Keniel Yao, Zhiyuan Lin, Julian Nyarko, and Sharad Goel. Blind justice: Algorithmically masking race in charging decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 35-45, 2021.
  23. Alex Chohlas-Wood, Madison Coots, Emma Brunskill, and Sharad Goel. Learning to be fair: A consequentialist approach to equitable decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08792 , 2023a. · arXiv
  24. Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Communications of the ACM , 63(5):82-89, 2020.
  25. Alexandra Chouldechova, Diana Benavides-Prado, Oleksandr Fialko, and Rhema Vaithianathan. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages 134-148, 2018.
  26. Jens Peter Reus Christensen. On sets of Haar measure zero in Abelian Polish groups. Israel Journal of Mathematics , 13(3-4):255-260, 1972.
  27. T Anne Cleary. Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement , 5(2):115-124, 1968.
  28. Madison Coots, Soroush Saghafian, David Kent, and Sharad Goel. Reevaluating the role of race and ethnicity in diabetes screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10220 , 2023. · arXiv
  29. Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023v2 , 2018.
  30. Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, and Aziz Huq. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 797-806, 2017.
  31. Amanda Coston, Alan Mishler, Edward H Kennedy, and Alexandra Chouldechova. Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 582-593, 2020.
  32. Andrew Cotter, Heinrich Jiang, and Karthik Sridharan. Two-player games for efficient non-convex constrained optimization. In Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 300-332. PMLR, 2019.
  33. Stewart J D'Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg. Race and the probability of arrest. Social forces , 81(4):1381-1397, 2003.
  34. Richard B Darlington. Another look at 'cultural fairness'. Journal of Educational Measurement , 8(2):71-82, 1971.
  35. Matthew DeMichele, Peter Baumgartner, Michael Wenger, Kelle Barrick, Megan Comfort, and Shilpi Misra. The Public Safety Assessment: A re-validation and assessment of predictive utility and differential prediction by race and gender in Kentucky, 2018. URL https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3168452 .
  36. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference , pages 214-226, 2012.
  37. Harrison Edwards and Amos Storkey. Censoring representations with an adversary. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Learning Representations , 2016.
  38. Robin S Engel and Rob Tillyer. Searching for equilibrium: The tenuous nature of the outcome test. Justice Quarterly , 25(1):54-71, 2008.
  39. Michael Feldman, Sorelle A Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 259268. ACM, 2015.
  40. Owen M Fiss. Groups and the Equal Protection Clause. Philosophy & Public Affairs , pages 107-177, 1976.
  41. Sainyam Galhotra, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Prasanna Sattigeri, and Kush R Varshney. Causal feature selection for algorithmic fairness. Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) , 2022.
  42. George C Galster. The facts of lending discrimination cannot be argued away by examining default rates. Housing Policy Debate , 4(1):141-146, 1993.
  43. Sharad Goel, Maya Perelman, Ravi Shroff, and David Alan Sklansky. Combatting police discrimination in the age of big data. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal , 20(2):181-232, 2017.
  44. Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of 'blind' auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review , 90(4):715-741, 2000.
  45. DJames Greiner and Donald B Rubin. Causal effects of perceived immutable characteristics. Review of Economics and Statistics , 93(3):775-785, 2011.
  46. Jeffrey Grogger and Greg Ridgeway. Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 101(475):878-887, 2006.
  47. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 29:3315-3323, 2016.
  48. Ursula H´ ebert-Johnson, Michael Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy Rothblum. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1939-1948. PMLR, 2018.
  49. Jennifer L Hill. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 20(1):217-240, 2011.
  50. Paul W Holland. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 81(396):945-960, 1986.
  51. Lily Hu and Issa Kohler-Hausmann. What's sex got to do with machine learning? In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 2020.
  52. Brian R Hunt, Tim Sauer, and James A Yorke. Prevalence: a translation-invariant 'almost every' on infinite-dimensional spaces. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 27 (2):217-238, 1992.
  53. Kosuke Imai and Zhichao Jiang. Principal fairness for human and algorithmic decisionmaking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10400 , 2020. · arXiv
  54. Kosuke Imai, Zhichao Jiang, James Greiner, Ryan Halen, and Sooahn Shin. Experimental evaluation of algorithm-assisted human decision-making: Application to pretrial public safety assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.02845 , 2020. · arXiv
  55. Guido W Imbens and Donald B Rubin. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences . Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  56. Christopher Jung, Sampath Kannan, Changhwa Lee, Mallesh Pai, Aaron Roth, and Rakesh Vohra. Fair prediction with endogenous behavior. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 677-678, 2020a.
  57. Jongbin Jung, Connor Concannon, Ravi Shroff, Sharad Goel, and Daniel G Goldstein. Simple rules to guide expert classifications. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) , 183(3):771-800, 2020b.
  58. Jongbin Jung, Ravi Shroff, Avi Feller, and Sharad Goel. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for offline policy evaluation. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 64-70, 2020c.
  59. John G. Kemeny and J. Laurie Snell. Finite Markov Chains . Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976. Reprinting of the 1960 original.
  60. Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 133(1):237-293, 2017a.
  61. Achim Klenke. Probability Theory: A Comprehensive Course . Universitext. Springer, Cham, 2020. Third edition.
  62. John Knowles, Nicola Persico, and Petra Todd. Racial bias in motor vehicle searches: Theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy , 109(1), 2001.
  63. Allison Koenecke, Andrew Nam, Emily Lake, Joe Nudell, Minnie Quartey, Zion Mengesha, Connor Toups, John R Rickford, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharad Goel. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(14): 7684-7689, 2020.
  64. Allison Koenecke, Eric Giannella, Robb Willer, and Sharad Goel. Popular support for balancing equity and efficiency in resource allocation: A case study in online advertising to increase welfare program awareness. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume 17, pages 494-506, 2023.
  65. Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 4066-4076, 2017.
  66. John M. Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds , volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, New York, second edition, 2013.
  67. Annie Liang, Jay Lu, and Xiaosheng Mu. Algorithmic design: Fairness versus accuracy. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 58-59, 2022.
  68. Joshua R Loftus, Chris Russell, Matt J Kusner, and Ricardo Silva. Causal reasoning for algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.05859 , 2018. · arXiv
  69. Vishwali Mhasawade and Rumi Chunara. Causal multi-level fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 784-794, 2021.
  70. Alan Mishler, Edward H Kennedy, and Alexandra Chouldechova. Fairness in risk assessment instruments: Post-processing to achieve counterfactual equalized odds. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 386-400, 2021.
  71. Pat Muldowney, Krzysztof Ostaszewski, and Wojciech Wojdowski. The Darth Vader rule. Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications , 52(1):53-63, 2012.
  72. Sendhil Mullainathan and Jann Spiess. Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 31(2):87-106, 2017.
  73. Razieh Nabi and Ilya Shpitser. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018.
  74. Hamed Nilforoshan, Johann D Gaebler, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. Causal conceptions of fairness and their consequences. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 16848-16887. PMLR, 2022.
  75. Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science , 366(6464): 447-453, 2019.
  76. William Ott and James Yorke. Prevalence. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 42(3):263-290, 2005.
  77. Scott E Page. Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21(4):6-20, 2007.
  78. Jessica K Paulus and David M Kent. Predictably unequal: Understanding and addressing concerns that algorithmic clinical prediction may increase health disparities. NPJ Digital Medicine , 3(1):1-8, 2020.
  79. Judea Pearl. Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence, 2001 , pages 411-420. Morgan Kaufman, 2001.
  80. Judea Pearl. Causality . Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2009b.
  81. Dino Pedreshi, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Franco Turini. Discrimination-aware data mining. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 560-568, 2008.
  82. Edmund S Phelps. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. The American Economic Review , 62(4):659-661, 1972.
  83. Emma Pierson, Sam Corbett-Davies, and Sharad Goel. Fast threshold tests for detecting discrimination. In The 21st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) , 2018.
  84. Emma Pierson, Camelia Simoiu, Jan Overgoor, Sam Corbett-Davies, Daniel Jenson, Amy Shoemaker, Vignesh Ramachandran, Phoebe Barghouty, Cheryl Phillips, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour , 4(7):736-745, 2020.
  85. Rajeev Ramchand, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, and Martin Y Iguchi. Racial differences in marijuana-users' risk of arrest in the United States. Drug and alcohol dependence , 84(3): 264-272, 2006.
  86. M. M. Rao. Conditional measures and applications , volume 271 of Pure and Applied Mathematics (Boca Raton) . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, second edition, 2005.
  87. Guy N Rothblum and Gal Yona. Decision-making under miscalibration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09852 , 2022. · arXiv
  88. Walter Rudin. Principles of Mathematical Analysis , volume 3. McGraw-Hill New York, 1976.
  89. Walter Rudin. Real and Complex Analysis . McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, third edition, 1987. ISBN 0-07-054234-1.
  90. Walter Rudin. Functional Analysis . International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, second edition, 1991. ISBN 0-07-054236-8.
  91. Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Haoran Zhang, Matthew McDermott, Irene Y Chen, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nature Medicine , 27(12):2176-2182, 2021.
  92. Moshe Shaked and J George Shanthikumar. Stochastic Orders . Springer, 2007.
  93. Ravi Shroff. Predictive analytics for city agencies: Lessons from children's services. Big Data , 5(3):189-196, 2017.
  94. Jennifer Skeem, John Monahan, and Christopher Lowenkamp. Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. Law and human behavior , 40(5): 580, 2016.
  95. Jennifer L. Skeem and Christopher T. Lowenkamp. Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology , 54(4):680-712, 2016.
  96. Yixin Wang, Dhanya Sridhar, and David M Blei. Equal opportunity and affirmative action via counterfactual predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10870 , 2019. · arXiv
  97. Teresa Scotton Williams. Some issues in the standardized testing of minority students. Journal of Education , pages 192-208, 1983.
  98. Blake Woodworth, Suriya Gunasekar, Mesrob I Ohannessian, and Nathan Srebro. Learning non-discriminatory predictors. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1920-1953. PMLR, 2017.
  99. Yongkai Wu, Lu Zhang, Xintao Wu, and Hanghang Tong. PC-fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019.
  100. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages 1171-1180, 2017a.
  101. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. From parity to preference-based notions of fairness in classification. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 228-238, 2017b.
  102. Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rogriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classification. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 962-970, 2017c.
  103. Michael Zanger-Tishler, Julian Nyarko, and Sharad Goel. Risk scores, label bias, and everything but the kitchen sink. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12638 , 2023. · arXiv
  104. Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. Learning fair representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 325-333, 2013.
  105. Junzhe Zhang and Elias Bareinboim. Fairness in decision-making-the causal explanation formula. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018.
  106. Lu Zhang, Yongkai Wu, and Xintao Wu. A causal framework for discovering and removing direct and indirect discrimination. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 3929-3935, 2017.

Authors
Corbett-Davies, S., Gaebler, J. D., Nilforoshan, H., Shroff, R., & Goel, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1808.00023
arXiv
1808.00023
OpenAlex
W2885659818
Cited by
444
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 124 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-165651 8, 2040898, 1656518)
  • Harvard Data Science Initiative, Harvard University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, Pareto dominance, protected characteristics, university admission, student diversity, policy alignment, algorithmic 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