Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two causal pre-processing methods resolve both fairness trade-offs by approximating the FiND world.

desk verdict The simulation diagnostic is the real contribution; the theory is familiar and the HMDA causal graph is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14710 v1 pith:IKPHHU3I submitted 2025-01-24 stat.ML cs.LG

Charlotte Leininger , Simon Rittel , Ludwig Bothmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords causalfairnessFiNDworldfairness-accuracytrade-offimpossibilitytheorempre-processingfairadaptresidual-basedwarpingdemographicparity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the two central deadlocks of fair machine learning—the fairness-accuracy trade-off and the impossibility of satisfying several group fairness metrics at once—are artifacts of evaluating models on biased, real-world data. In the 'fictitious and normatively desired' (FiND) world, where the protected attribute has no causal effect on the target, either directly or indirectly, demographic parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity all hold by construction, and better fairness corresponds to better predictive performance. The authors show that two causal pre-processing methods, fairadapt and residual-based warping, approximate the FiND world well enough on simulated and real mortgage data that both trade-offs disappear in practice. This matters because it offers practitioners a concrete route to fair models without sacrificing accuracy and without choosing among competing fairness metrics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FiND (fictitious and normatively desired) world, a counterfactual causal model in which the protected attribute is a root node with no children, so no causal path from it reaches any feature or the target. Its work in the argument is to instantiate the equal-base-rate exception to the impossibility theorem through the independence $Y \perp\!\!\perp A$ and, at the same time, to turn the fairness-accuracy trade-off into an alignment. Two pre-processing mechanisms carry the practical half: fairadapt, which builds 'fair twins' by quantile-preserving projection onto a single baseline protected group, and residual-based warping, which computes rank-preserving interventional distributions so protected-group individuals keep their ranks while their values are moved to the unprotected group's distribution. The evaluation mechanism is a regularized empirical risk that adds a demographic-parity penalty term to gradient-boosted-tree training and traces AUC against penalty strength, providing the empirical signature of FiND-world approximation.

What would settle it

On a simulated FiND world dataset of the paper's type, train the same gradient-boosted model at the 11 penalty strengths of Algorithm 1 and compute the Spearman correlation between the demographic-parity violation $C$ and AUC on the FiND world test data. The paper's claim predicts a negative correlation (fairer models are more accurate); a positive or zero correlation would refute the alignment claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the FiND world—a counterfactual world in which the protected attribute has no causal effect on the target, neither directly nor indirectly—provides the common cause behind earlier empirical findings that fairness and accuracy can align on unbiased data. Because the protected attribute is independent of the target in this world, group base rates are equal, and the FiND world becomes the equal-prevalence special case under which the impossibility theorem no longer bites: demographic parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity are satisfied simultaneously. The same independence makes fairness and accuracy positively related: models trained in the real world that enforce a fairness constraint perform better when evaluated in the FiND world. The paper further claims that pre-processing methods that approximate the FiND world transfer this theoretical resolution to practice, and the authors provide an in-processing criterion—whether increasing the strength of a demographic-parity constraint improves AUC on pre-processed test data—for judging when the approximation succeeds.

Load-bearing premise

The causal DAG supplied by the practitioner must match the true data-generating process, including no hidden confounders; if the graph is misspecified, unremoved causal paths survive and the pre-processing no longer approximates the FiND world, as the paper concedes in its discussion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the FiND world, demographic parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity all hold simultaneously without imposing constraints, so the impossibility theorem loses force whenever the data represent that world.
  • On data approximating the FiND world, increasing the strength of a fairness constraint during training no longer costs AUC; the fairness-performance curve slopes upward instead of downward.
  • Practitioners can stop explicitly enforcing a chosen fairness metric and instead train unconstrained models on pre-processed data, because the approximation already guarantees group-level fairness.
  • Both fairadapt and warping achieve near-complete group fairness (differences under about 3.6% in simulation) while keeping AUC essentially unchanged, and the real HMDA mortgage data shows the same pattern.
  • The paper's evaluation method gives a general test: if enforcing a demographic-parity constraint raises AUC on pre-processed test data, the pre-processing has successfully approximated the FiND world.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the causal graph is learned or misspecified, the methods' success should degrade in a predictable way; a sensitivity analysis over plausible DAG perturbations would turn this assumption into a measured quantity.
  • The FiND-world argument suggests that any pre-processing method that achieves the same interventional independence—not only causal ones—should also dissolve the trade-offs, so comparing non-causal fair-representation learners on the same evaluation scheme is a direct testable extension.
  • Extending to multiple protected attributes and intersectional groups should inherit the same base-rate-equality mechanism only if the graph blocks all causal paths from every protected attribute, making intersectionality a graph-sufficiency question rather than a metric-choice question.
  • Since the FiND world equalizes base rates by normative fiat, the practical guarantee matches the normative intent only when historical discrimination is in fact the sole source of base-rate differences; where group differences have legitimate causes, the approximation silently removes them too.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the "FiND world" (fictitious and normatively desired world), in which protected attributes have no causal effects on the target, resolves two classical fairness trade-offs: the incompatibility of group fairness metrics and the fairness-accuracy trade-off. The authors derive that demographic parity, equalized odds, and predictive parity all hold in the FiND world, and they propose that causal pre-processing methods (fairadapt and residual-based warping) can approximate this world. They introduce an evaluation procedure based on demographic-parity regularized training and demonstrate in simulations and on HMDA mortgage data that the pre-processed data exhibit both high fairness and high predictive performance.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a practically relevant recipe: pre-process data to approximate a causally defined fair world, then train unconstrained models, avoiding both the fairness-accuracy trade-off and metric incompatibility. The simulation study is a strength because the FiND world is known by construction, and the paper is transparent about the central assumption that the causal graph is known and causally sufficient. The theoretical connection between the FiND world and group fairness metrics is clearly drawn, and the use of publicly available software and data aids reproducibility. However, the real-data conclusion rests on an unvalidated causal graph, and the proposed evaluation criterion is closely tied to the very property the pre-processing methods are designed to enforce, which weakens the independence of the empirical evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Fig. 3] The assumed HMDA DAG entails A⊥X_C (race independent of the age/gender confounders), but the paper does not test this or any other empirical implication of the graph. If this independence is violated in the actual HMDA sample, the fairadapt and warping transformations do not implement a well-defined intervention to a FiND world, because unremoved paths through X_C remain, and the increasing AUC in Fig. 4 cannot be attributed to approximating the FiND world. The Section 6 acknowledgment that a correct DAG is a necessary requirement is not a substitute for empirical validation; please test the DAG's implied marginal independences on the HMDA data, or provide a sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible DAGs.
  2. [Section 4.1, Algorithm 1] The proposed method for evaluating whether pre-processing approximates the FiND world is based on the same property (demographic parity holds in the FiND world) that the pre-processing methods are specifically designed to produce. Observing that DP-regularized models achieve higher AUC on pre-processed test data is therefore close to a consistency check rather than an independent validation of the FiND approximation. To make the criterion informative, the authors should demonstrate its discriminative power, for example by including a negative control (such as a pre-processing method that removes only some causal paths) and showing that the proposed criterion fails to indicate FiND approximation in that case, or by stating precisely what outcome would count as a failure.
  3. [Section 2.2.4] The paper claims to "show theoretically" that fairness aligns with high predictive performance in the FiND world, but Section 2.2.4 provides only a heuristic argument rather than a formal theorem or derivation. In particular, no proof is given that a model trained on biased real-world data under a DP constraint will have higher AUC on FiND-world test data; this is demonstrated only in a specific simulation. Since this alignment is a central component of the paper's claim to resolve the fairness-accuracy trade-off, please either supply a precise theorem with explicit conditions, or revise the wording so that the theoretical contribution is limited to the derivation that the FiND world satisfies the group fairness metrics, with the alignment claim presented as an empirical finding.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] In the real-world row, the 95% confidence interval for AUC is reported as [0.895,0.899], which excludes the point estimate 0.887; this is internally inconsistent and should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1b] The FiND row contains the typo "unkown"; it should read "unknown".
  3. [Section 2.2.1] The graphoid argument for equalized odds and predictive parity is correct only because the FiND DAG makes A d-separated from all other variables, giving joint independence A⊥(Y*,Ŷ*). The text should state this d-separation explicitly, since readers may otherwise reasonably object that marginal independence of A from Y and from Ŷ does not generally imply conditional independence given Y or Ŷ.
  4. [Section 4.3] The sentence "the performance of the real world model is not directly interpretable as it still inherits bias" is vague; please specify which models in Table 1a are directly comparable and in what sense the real-world AUC is not interpretable.
  5. [Figure 2] The x-axis is described in the text as fairness 1−C(π̂_test), but the figure labels are not described in the caption; please clarify the axis definitions in the caption for all panels.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase "unbiased data" is ambiguous because, in a statistical sense, unbiasedness refers to estimators; here it means data generated from the FiND world. Please rephrase to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The theoretical resolution of the impossibility theorem is a definitional consequence of the FiND world; the empirical pre-processing evaluation is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2.2, after Eq. (8)]
    "However, as we have just derived, these metrics are all inherently fulfilled in the FiND word. In fact, the FiND world represents one of the special cases of the impossibility theorem, namely equal base rates among groups. This is due to the independence assumption of Y ⊥ A of the FiND world, which implies that individuals from protected and unprotected groups have the same probability of belonging to the positive class: P(Y = 1|A = a) = P(Y = 1|A = a′) = P(Y = 1). (8) ... Therefore, the FiND world is able to overcome the trade-off between competing fairness metrics naturally by design."

    The FiND world is defined (Section 2.1.1) as a world where the protected attribute has no causal effect on the target, which is exactly the independence Y⊥⊥A used in Eq. (8). Equal group base rates are one of the two known exceptions to the impossibility theorem, so the claimed 'theoretical resolution' of the impossibility theorem is not a derived prediction: it is a restatement of the defining assumption. The paper itself says the result holds 'by design', confirming that the output is equivalent to the input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's empirical program is largely self-contained: it generates a true FiND world in simulation, applies fairadapt and warping, and compares the pre-processed data against that world both in terms of group-conditional distributions and in terms of the fairness/accuracy relationship. The HMDA experiment then uses the same theory-derived success criterion, namely that enforcing a demographic-parity constraint should improve AUC on FiND-like data; this is a theory-driven evaluation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the pattern could in principle fail. The main circular step is the theoretical 'overcoming' of the impossibility theorem: because the FiND world is defined to have Y⊥⊥A, equal base rates hold by definition, which is precisely one of the theorem's exceptions. Thus the central first-principles claim (i) reduces to the definition of the FiND world. The self-citation to Bothmann et al. [9] is load-bearing for the normative premise, but the paper's own simulations provide independent empirical content, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the FiND world definition (a normative assumption from the authors' prior work), causal sufficiency and root-node assumptions, and the correct specification of the causal DAG. No new physical entities are introduced; the simulation and HMDA data are standard.

free parameters (4)
  • Simulation structural equation coefficients (alpha_A, beta_A, pi_D, pi_Y) = Not fully specified; described as linear combinations with log/logit links
    Hand-chosen in Appendix A.1 to generate the real-world and FiND-world data; the empirical findings depend on these values.
  • Fairness threshold epsilon = 0.01
    Chosen in Section 3.2 to define when the demographic parity constraint is considered satisfied; this determines lambda* and the shape of the fairness-performance curves.
  • Interpolation steps S = 9
    Chosen in Section 3.2; controls the number of models trained in Algorithm 1.
  • HMDA feature subset = XA, XP, XD, XC (age, gender)
    Author-selected variables from the HMDA dataset; the simplified DAG determines what pre-processing can achieve.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Protected attributes have no causal effect on the target in the FiND world, directly or indirectly
    This is the normative definition of fairness adopted from Bothmann et al. [9]; all fairness claims in the paper are relative to this definition (Section 2.1.1).
  • domain assumption Causal relations are acyclic and causally sufficient
    Section 2.1.1; needed to represent the real and FiND worlds as Bayesian networks over observed variables.
  • domain assumption The protected attribute A is a root node
    Section 2.1.1; ensures no back-door paths, so dependence between A and Y indicates causal effects from A.
  • domain assumption The assumed DAG for the HMDA data is correctly specified
    The pre-processing methods (fairadapt, warping) require a correct causal graph; misspecification would leave causal paths intact. Acknowledged as a limitation in Section 6.
  • standard math Compositional and weak union axioms of the compositional graphoid
    Invoked in Section 2.2.1 to derive equalized odds and predictive parity from independence conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKPHHU3I

@misc{pith2026250114710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKPHHU3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14710}
}
read the original abstract

Training machine learning models for fair decisions faces two key challenges: The \emph{fairness-accuracy trade-off} results from enforcing fairness which weakens its predictive performance in contrast to an unconstrained model. The incompatibility of different fairness metrics poses another trade-off -- also known as the \emph{impossibility theorem}. Recent work identifies the bias within the observed data as a possible root cause and shows that fairness and predictive performance are in fact in accord when predictive performance is measured on unbiased data. We offer a causal explanation for these findings using the framework of the FiND (fictitious and normatively desired) world, a "fair" world, where protected attributes have no causal effects on the target variable. We show theoretically that (i) classical fairness metrics deemed to be incompatible are naturally satisfied in the FiND world, while (ii) fairness aligns with high predictive performance. We extend our analysis by suggesting how one can benefit from these theoretical insights in practice, using causal pre-processing methods that approximate the FiND world. Additionally, we propose a method for evaluating the approximation of the FiND world via pre-processing in practical use cases where we do not have access to the FiND world. In simulations and empirical studies, we demonstrate that these pre-processing methods are successful in approximating the FiND world and resolve both trade-offs. Our results provide actionable solutions for practitioners to achieve fairness and high predictive performance simultaneously.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14710 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Assumed causal DAGs of the (a) real world and (b) FiND world for the credit application example introduced in Section 2.1.1, with shaded nodes being observed, i.e., accessible for model training. In the FiND world, the PA 𝐴 has no children, its descendants according to the causal graph from the real world lack a causal bias from 𝐴. To distinguish these counterfactual features from their real equivalents, we denote t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fairness-performance curves of predictors trained on real-world data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Assumed causal DAGs for the HMDA dataset of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fairness-performance curves of predictors trained on HMDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of 𝑋𝐴 in simulated real, FiND, adapted and warped world per protected 𝑎 and unprotected group 𝑎 ′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of 𝑋𝐴 on real-world, adapted and warped HMDA data per protected 𝑎 and unprotected group 𝑎 ′ 9A detailed description of all variables is provided here: https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/documentation/publications/loan-level-datasets/lar-data-fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Privilege Scores

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Privilege scores quantify the difference between real-world model predictions and predictions in a fair world with the protected attribute's influence removed, plus Shapley-based contributions explaining each privilege path.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna M. Wallach. 2018. A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018 (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80) , Jennifer G. Dy and Andreas...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine Bias: There’s Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And It’s Biased Against Blacks. ProPublica (May 23 2016). https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in- criminal-sentencing

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2023. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities . MIT Press

    2023

  4. [4]

    Andrew Bell, Lucius Bynum, Nazarii Drushchak, Tetiana Zakharchenko, Lucas Rosenblatt, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2023. The Possibility of Fairness: Revisiting the Impossibility Theorem in Practice. In 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . ACM, Chicago IL USA, 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3594007

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, Seth Neel, and Aaron Roth

    Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Matthew Joseph, Michael J. Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, Seth Neel, and Aaron Roth. 2017. A Convex Framework for Fair Regression. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02409

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Reuben Binns. 2020. On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness. In FAT* ’20: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, Spain, January 27-30, 2020 , Mireille Hildebrandt, Carlos Castillo, L. Elisa Celis, Salvatore Ruggieri, Linnet Taylor, and Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna (Eds.). ACM, 514–524. https://doi.org/10.114...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Avrim Blum and Kevin Stangl. 2020. Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy?. In 1st Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing, FORC 2020, June 1-3, 2020, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA (virtual conference) (LIPIcs, Vol. 156) , Aaron Roth (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 3:1–3:20. http...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.forc.2020.3 2020

  8. [8]

    Ludwig Bothmann, Susanne Dandl, and Michael Schomaker. 2023. Causal Fair Machine Learning via Rank-Preserving Interventional Distributions. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Fairness and Bias in AI co-located with 26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2023), Kraków, Poland, October 1st, 2023 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 3523), ...

    work page 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Ludwig Bothmann, Kristina Peters, and Bernd Bischl. 2024. What Is Fairness? On the Role of Protected Attributes and Fictitious Worlds. http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09622

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, FAT 2018, 23-24 February 2018, New York, NY, USA (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Flavio Calmon, Dennis Wei, Bhanukiran Vinzamuri, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, and Kush R Varshney. 2017. Optimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc. https://papers.nips.cc/pa...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Elisa Celis, Lingxiao Huang, Vijay Keswani, and Nisheeth K

    L. Elisa Celis, Lingxiao Huang, Vijay Keswani, and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. 2019. Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guarantees. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, Janua...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Tianqi Chen, Tong He, Michael Benesty, Vadim Khotilovich, Yuan Tang, Hyunsu Cho, Kailong Chen, Rory Mitchell, Ignacio Cano, Tianyi Zhou, Mu Li, Junyuan Xie, Min Lin, Yifeng Geng, Yutian Li, and Jiaming Yuan. 2014. xgboost: Extreme Gradient Boosting. https://doi.org/10.32614/CR...

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Silvia Chiappa. 2019. Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairness. In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances i...

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments. Big Data 5, 2 (2017), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/BIG.2016.0047

    2017

  8. [16]

    Feder Cooper, Ellen Abrams, and Na Na

    A. Feder Cooper, Ellen Abrams, and Na Na. 2021. Emergent Unfairness in Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Off Research. InAIES ’21: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Virtual Event, USA, May 19-21, 2021 , Marion Fourcade, Benjamin Kuipers, Seth Lazar, and Deirdre...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel

    Sam Corbett-Davies, Johann D. Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. 2023. The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24 (2023), 312:1–312:117. http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/22-1511.html

    2023

  10. [18]

    Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, and Aziz Huq. 2017. Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Halifax, NS, Canada, August 13 - 17, 2017...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Gupta, Serena Lutong Wang, Taman Narayan, Seungil You, and Karthik Sridharan

    Andrew Cotter, Heinrich Jiang, Maya R. Gupta, Serena Lutong Wang, Taman Narayan, Seungil You, and Karthik Sridharan. 2019. Optimization with Non-Differentiable Constraints with Applications to Fairness, Recall, Churn, and Other Goals. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 20 (2019), 172:1–172:...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Cruz, Catarina G

    André F. Cruz, Catarina G. Belém, João Bravo, Pedro Saleiro, and Pedro Bizarro. 2023. FairGBM: Gradient Boosting with Fairness Constraints. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net. https://...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Cruz and Moritz Hardt

    André F. Cruz and Moritz Hardt. 2024. Unprocessing Seven Years of Algorithmic Fairness. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id=jr03SfWsBS

    2024

  14. [22]

    Michele Donini, Luca Oneto, Shai Ben-David, John Shawe-Taylor, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2018. Empirical Risk Minimization Under Fairness Constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurI...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Sanghamitra Dutta, Dennis Wei, Hazar Yueksel, Pin-Yu Chen, Sijia Liu, and Kush Varshney. 2020. Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis Testing. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR,...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard S. Zemel. 2012. Fairness Through Awareness. InInnovations in Theoretical Computer Science 2012, Cambridge, MA, USA, January 8-10, 2012 , Shafi Goldwasser (Ed.). ACM, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/20902...

    2012

  17. [25]

    Tsakalidis, and Giannis Tzimas

    Evanthia Faliagka, Athanasios K. Tsakalidis, and Giannis Tzimas. 2012. An Integrated E-Recruitment System for Automated Personality Mining and Applicant Ranking. Internet Res. 22, 5 (2012), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211271545

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Marco Favier, Toon Calders, Sam Pinxteren, and Jonathan Meyer. 2023. How to be fair? A study of label and selection bias. Mach. Learn. 112, 12 (2023), 5081–5104. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10994-023-06401-1

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Benjamin Fish, Jeremy Kun, and Ádám Dániel Lelkes. 2016. A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Miami, Florida, USA, May 5-7, 2016 , Sanjay Chawla Venkatasubramanian and Wagner M...

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian

    Sorelle A. Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2016. On the (im)possibility of fairness. http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07236

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian

    Sorelle A. Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2021. The (Im)possibility of fairness: different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making. Commun. ACM 64, 4 (April 2021), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1145/3433949

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Sofie Goethals, Toon Calders, and David Martens. 2024. Beyond Accuracy-Fairness: Stop evaluating bias mitigation methods solely on between-group metrics. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13391

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain , Daniel D. Lee, M...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu

    Michael J. Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July ...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas-Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Proce...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Constantinou, Zhigao Guo, Yang Liu, and Kiattikun Chobtham

    Neville Kenneth Kitson, Anthony C. Constantinou, Zhigao Guo, Yang Liu, and Kiattikun Chobtham. 2023. A survey of Bayesian Network structure learning. Artif. Intell. Rev. 56, 8 (2023), 8721–8814. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10462-022-10351-W Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-...

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan

    Jon M. Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2017, January 9-11, 2017, Berkeley, CA, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 67) , Christos H. Papad...

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Nikola Konstantinov and Christoph H. Lampert. 2021. Fairness Through Regularization for Learning to Rank. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.05996

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nikita Kozodoi, Johannes Jacob, and Stefan Lessmann. 2022. Fairness in credit scoring: Assessment, implementation and profit implications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 297, 3 (2022), 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2021.06.023

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Kusner, Joshua R

    Matt J. Kusner, Joshua R. Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual Fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA , Isabelle Guyon...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum

    Preethi Lahoti, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2019. iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making. In 35th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2019, Macao, China, April 8-11, 2019 . IEEE, 1334–1345. https:/...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Steffen Lauritzen and Kayvan Sadeghi. 2018. Unifying Markov properties for graphical models. The Annals of Statistics 46, 5 (2018), 2251 – 2278. https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOS1618

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Michelle Seng Ah Lee and Luciano Floridi. 2021. Algorithmic Fairness in Mortgage Lending: from Absolute Conditions to Relational Trade-offs. Minds Mach. 31, 1 (2021), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11023-020-09529-4

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Loftus, Chris Russell, Matt J

    Joshua R. Loftus, Chris Russell, Matt J. Kusner, and Ricardo Silva. 2018. Causal Reasoning for Algorithmic Fairness. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05859

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Subha Maity, Debarghya Mukherjee, Mikhail Yurochkin, and Yuekai Sun. 2021. Does enforcing fairness mitigate biases caused by subpopulation shift?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS ...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Nicolai Meinshausen. 2006. Quantile Regression Forests. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7 (2006), 983–999. https://jmlr.org/papers/v7/meinshausen06a.html

    2006

  37. [45]

    Williamson

    Aditya Krishna Menon and Robert C. Williamson. 2018. The cost of fairness in binary classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 107–118. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/menon18a.html

    2018

  38. [46]

    Shira Mitchell, Eric Potash, Solon Barocas, Alexander D’Amour, and Kristian Lum. 2021. Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 8, Volume 8, 2021 (March 2021), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statisti...

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Giulio Morina, Viktoriia Oliinyk, Julian Waton, Ines Marusic, and Konstantinos Georgatzis. 2020. Auditing and Achieving Intersectional Fairness in Classification Problems. http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01468

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Drago Plecko and Elias Bareinboim. 2024. Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2405.15443

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Drago Plecko, Nicolas Bennett, and Nicolai Meinshausen. 2024. fairadapt: Causal Reasoning for Fair Data Preprocessing. J. Stat. Softw. 110, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.18637/JSS.V110.I04

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Drago Plečko and Nicolai Meinshausen. 2020. Fair Data Adaptation with Quantile Preservation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 (2020), 1–44. http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/19-966.html

    2020

  43. [51]

    Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, and Rayid Ghani

    Kit T. Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, and Rayid Ghani. 2021. Empirical observation of negligible fairness-accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policy. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 10 (2021), 896–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/S42256-021-00396-X

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Anian Ruoss, Mislav Balunovic, Marc Fischer, and Martin T. Vechev. 2020. Learning Certified Individually Fair Representations. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, ...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Mohit Sharma and Amit Deshpande. 2024. How Far Can Fairness Constraints Help Recover From Biased Data?. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id=RfQT6vJt8b

    2024

  46. [54]

    Ríos Aliaga, Djallel Bouneffouf, Vinod Muthusamy, and Kush R

    Shubham Sharma, Yunfeng Zhang, Jesús M. Ríos Aliaga, Djallel Bouneffouf, Vinod Muthusamy, and Kush R. Varshney. 2020. Data Augmentation for Discrimination Prevention and Bias Disambiguation. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . ACM, New York N...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Ricardo Silva. 2024. Counterfactual Fairness Is Not Demographic Parity, and Other Observations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.02663

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    van der Laan, and Romain Neugebauer

    Oleg Sofrygin, Mark J. van der Laan, and Romain Neugebauer. 2017. simcausal R Package: Conducting Transparent and Reproducible Simulation Studies of Causal Effect Estimation with Complex Longitudinal Data. Journal of Statistical Software 81, 2 (2017), 1–47. https://doi.org/10....

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Chandler Squires and Caroline Uhler. 2022. Causal structure learning: a combinatorial perspective. Foundations of Computational Mathematics (2022), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-022-09581-9

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2021. Bias Preservation in Machine Learning: The Legality of Fairness Metrics Under EU Non-Discrimination Law. SSRN Electronic Journal (2021). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3792772

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Wick, Swetasudha Panda, and Jean-Baptiste Tristan

    Michael L. Wick, Swetasudha Panda, and Jean-Baptiste Tristan. 2019. Unlocking Fairness: a Trade-off Revisited. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Shizhou Xu and Thomas Strohmer. 2023. Fair Data Representation for Machine Learning at the Pareto Frontier. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24 (2023), 331:1–331:63. http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/22-0005.html

    2023

  53. [61]

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2017. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW...

    2017

  54. [62]

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2019. Fairness Constraints: A Flexible Approach for Fair Classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 20 (2019), 75:1–75:42. https://jmlr.org/papers/v20/18-262.html

    2019

  55. [63]

    Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork

    Richard S. Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. 2013. Learning Fair Representations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2013, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16-21 June 2013 (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol...

    2013

  56. [64]

    action taken

    Indre Zliobaite. 2015. On the relation between accuracy and fairness in binary classification. http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.05723 Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspective 19 A SIMULATION STUDY A.1 Simulation Setup We simulate the causal relationship...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.