Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 148 references

Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Algorithmic fairness should audit structural injustice through social determinants, not only sensitive attributes, because equal treatment across protected groups can conceal or create context-level unfairness.

desk verdict A position worth taking seriously: the field should audit social determinants, not just sensitive attributes, but the abstract alone doesn't establish the signal/noise separation the argument needs. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08337 v3 pith:FEBWAIN3 submitted 2025-08-10 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Zeyu Tang , Alex John London , Atoosa Kasirzadeh , Sarah Stewart de Ramirez , Peter Spirtes , Kun Zhang , Sanmi Koyejo This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG
keywords algorithmicfairnessstructuralinjusticesocialdeterminantssensitiveattributesauditingbreastcancerscreeningcollegeadmissionshealthcaredisparities
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

The paper argues that the dominant fairness lens—checking whether an algorithm treats people equally across sensitive attributes—misses the deeper form of unfairness it calls structural injustice: unequal life circumstances encoded in social determinants such as income, neighborhood, and healthcare access. Contexts, the authors say, are currently treated as noise to be normalized away when they should be treated as signal to be audited. To make the case, the paper offers a theoretical college-admissions model, a census-based demographic study, and a breast cancer screening audit within an integrated healthcare system. The central conclusion is that mitigation centered only on sensitive attributes can introduce new structural injustice, so auditing social determinants must come first.

What carries the argument

The central device is the distinction between two roles a variable can play in an algorithmic pipeline: signal to be audited versus noise to be normalized. Social determinants—income, neighborhood, healthcare access—are contextual variables that the paper says current methods tend to normalize as confounders or noise; the paper repositions them as the audit signal that reveals structural injustice. The college-admissions model, census study, and breast cancer screening analysis all serve to compare what sensitive-attribute parity says with what a social-determinant audit says.

What would settle it

Take the breast cancer screening setting and run a mitigation that achieves sensitive-attribute parity; then measure social-determinant disparities before and after that mitigation. If no new or hidden structural disparities appear, the paper's central claim would be contradicted; if they appear, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that unfairness in algorithmic systems should be quantified at the level of structural injustice rather than only as discrimination along sensitive attributes. Structural injustice, in this account, is instantiated through social determinants—contextual variables like income, neighborhood conditions, and access to care—that shape both attributes and outcomes but are not properties of the individuals being scored. The authors argue that prevailing technical fairness paradigms misclassify these contexts as noise when they should be audited as signal: a system can satisfy standard parity criteria across sensitive attributes and still encode or amplify unjust backgro

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on social determinants in data, like census and health-system records, being measured well enough and cleanly enough that their observed distributions reflect structural injustice rather than individual noise, confounding, or arbitrary data collection choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fairness audits would expand from checking parity across sensitive attributes to measuring disparities in social determinants such as income, neighborhood conditions, and access to care.
  • Mitigation procedures that enforce sensitive-attribute parity cannot be assumed safe; they can shift or create unfairness in contextual channels that the parity metric does not observe.
  • Auditing structural injustice becomes a prerequisite for mitigation: the field needs to know where structural injustice sits before deciding what to change.
  • Deployment contexts would need data infrastructures that link individual records with contextual variables so that structural determinants can actually be audited.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The audit-first logic transfers naturally to lending, hiring, and policing, where zip code, institutional access, and neighborhood conditions often carry structural signals; a testable extension would be to run similar audits in those sectors.
  • The paper frames but does not settle the normative question of which social-determinant distributions count as unjust; any operationalization must choose a reference distribution, and that choice is a policy decision.
  • A concrete extension would be to vary the set of social determinants in the screening analysis and see whether the divergence from sensitive-attribute audits is stable or depends on which contextual variables are included.
  • If adopted, this view would make fairness certification contextual and geographic rather than categorical: an algorithm could pass a sensitive-attribute audit in one region and fail a structural-injustice audit in another.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that algorithmic fairness research should move beyond sensitive-attribute parity and instead quantify 'structural injustice' through social determinants, defined in the abstract as contextual variables that shape attributes and outcomes 'without pertaining to specific individuals.' The abstract claims that prevailing technical paradigms treat such context as noise to be normalized rather than signal to be audited, and it reports three demonstrations: a theoretical model of college admissions, a U.S. census demographic study, and a breast cancer screening application in an integrated U.S. healthcare system. The paper concludes that mitigation strategies centered solely on sensitive attributes can introduce new forms of structural injustice and calls for auditing structural injustice via social determinants before mitigation. In the version provided, however, the full text after the abstract is unreadable character-encoding corruption, so the theoretical model, the data studies, and the reported results cannot be inspected or verified.

Significance. If the thesis is correct, it would broaden the target of algorithmic fairness auditing from parity across sensitive attributes to the distribution of contextual variables such as income, neighborhood, and healthcare access, and it would imply that an algorithm can be unfair even when it satisfies standard parity criteria. The paper promises concrete demonstrations, and such empirically grounded position papers can be valuable. But the current manuscript does not deliver these demonstrations in any inspectable form: the body is unreadable, the tables and equations are not legible, and the abstract-level assertions carry no details. The conceptual argument is also currently entangled with a definitional circularity: if structural injustice is defined through social determinants, then showing that sensitive-attribute mitigation does not change those determinants is close to tautological. The significance of the position can be assessed only after the full text is supplied and the operationalization premise is made explicit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text, after Abstract] The entire body of the manuscript, including the theoretical model of college admissions, the census study, the breast cancer screening application, and all tables and equations, is unreadable in the provided version due to character-encoding corruption. The abstract's claim that the paper 'demonstrate[s] the practical urgency of this shift' cannot be checked. This is load-bearing: the position's force depends on the demonstrations, and no section, equation, or exclusion rule can be verified. A revised version must supply a readable full text before the claims can be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract: 'without pertaining to specific individuals'] The abstract defines social determinants as contextual variables 'without pertaining to specific individuals,' yet the proposed demonstrations—census data and healthcare-system records—almost certainly rely on individual- or household-level variables such as income, neighborhood, and healthcare access. The paper needs an explicit operational criterion that separates structural-injustice signal in social determinants from individual noise or merit, and from the outcome being predicted. Without such a criterion, the central claim that sensitive-attribute mitigation 'can introduce new forms of structural injustice' risks becoming tautological: any residual correlation between social determinants and outcomes would be labeled injustice. This issue is present in the abstract and is not resolved in any readable portion of the text.
  3. [Theoretical model (unreadable)] The abstract's conclusion that sensitive-attribute-only mitigation introduces structural injustice depends on the assumptions of the college-admissions model. In the provided text, the model's equations and assumptions are unreadable, so I cannot determine whether the conclusion follows from substantive premises or is built in by construction. For example, if the model defines structural injustice as the level of social determinants and assumes sensitive-attribute mitigation does not alter those determinants, the conclusion is definitional rather than empirical. The revision must state the model's assumptions, its structural equations, and the causal ordering between sensitive attributes, social determinants, and outcomes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says contexts are 'potentially treated as noise to be normalized' but also claims the paper 'demonstrate[s]' the urgency. The modal verb and the demonstrative claim should be aligned; if the demonstrations are empirical, the 'potentially' should be replaced with a precise statement of which paradigms and under what conditions.
  2. [Full text, arXiv header] The corrupted body contains the line 'arXiv:2508.08339v1 [cs.LG] 11 Aug 2025,' which does not match the submitted arXiv number 2508.08337. This provenance inconsistency should be clarified, as it raises concerns about whether the correct file was uploaded.
  3. [Definitions] The terms 'social determinants,' 'structural injustice,' and 'contextual variables' are not formally defined in the abstract or in any readable portion. The paper should provide explicit definitions and examples, and clarify whether social determinants are intended to replace sensitive-attribute analysis or supplement it.
  4. [Related work] The paper's claim that prevailing technical paradigms fail to capture structural injustice should be accompanied by specific citations and a characterization of the 'sensitive-attribute-centered' approaches it critiques. The reference list is unreadable in the provided version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Definitional link between structural injustice and social determinants makes the central audit recommendation definitional; demonstrations cannot be verified from available text.

  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "However, this approach limits visibility into unfairness as structural injustice instantiated through social determinants, which are contextual variables that shape attributes and outcomes without pertaining to specific individuals. This position paper argues that the field should quantify structural injustice via social determinants, beyond sensitive attributes."

    The target concept is stipulated as 'structural injustice instantiated through social determinants,' and the proposed solution is to 'quantify structural injustice via social determinants' and audit it 'through social determinants.' The recommendation is therefore equivalent to its input definition: one is told to audit the very variable class used to define the target. If the demonstrations (college admissions, census, breast cancer screening) operationalize 'new forms of structural injustice' as post-mitigation changes in social determinants, then the conclusion 'mitigation can introduce new forms of structural injustice' follows by construction rather than from an independent metric. The available text does not provide an external criterion for structural injustice that is not tied to t

full rationale

The paper is a position paper, so most of its argument is normative rather than a formal derivation; that limits how strongly a circularity charge can be pressed. However, the abstract exhibits a definitional loop: 'structural injustice' is defined as being instantiated through social determinants, and then the paper's central recommendation is to quantify and audit structural injustice through those same determinants. On the available text—where the body is corrupted and no equations or validation results can be inspected—the demonstrations that 'mitigation ... can introduce new forms of structural injustice' are not shown to rest on an independent operationalization. If the demonstrations simply measure social-determinant imbalances before/after sensitive-attribute mitigation, the headline conclusion is a restatement of the definitional link. I therefore flag one self-definitional step and assign a moderate score. The score is not higher because the paper explicitly frames the link as a proposal ('argues') and invokes cross-disciplinary insights, leaving room for independent ethical and empirical content; and not lower because the quoted definition/prescription pair is the entire load-bearing core of the abstract.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract was readable; the retrieved full text is undecodable. The load-bearing inputs are the two domain assumptions above. No new entities are postulated; 'social determinants' is borrowed from public health. Any free parameters of the college admissions model are not visible in the abstract.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Fairness should be evaluated by structural injustice, not only by non-discrimination along sensitive attributes.
    The entire position rests on this normative premise, stated in the abstract's call to 'quantify structural injustice via social determinants'.
  • domain assumption Social determinants are measurable, auditable signals in the available census and healthcare data, separable from noise.
    The abstract asserts contexts are 'signal to be audited' and bases the census and breast cancer demonstrations on this premise; it is not verifiable from the abstract alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEBWAIN3

@misc{pith2026250808337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEBWAIN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08337}
}
read the original abstract

Algorithmic fairness research has largely framed unfairness as discrimination along sensitive attributes. However, this approach limits visibility into unfairness as structural injustice instantiated through social determinants, which are contextual variables that shape attributes and outcomes without pertaining to specific individuals. This position paper argues that the field should quantify structural injustice via social determinants, beyond sensitive attributes. Drawing on cross-disciplinary insights, we argue that prevailing technical paradigms fail to adequately capture unfairness as structural injustice, because contexts are potentially treated as noise to be normalized rather than signal to be audited. We further demonstrate the practical urgency of this shift through a theoretical model of college admissions, a demographic study using U.S. census data, and a high-stakes domain application regarding breast cancer screening within an integrated U.S. healthcare system. Our results indicate that mitigation strategies centered solely on sensitive attributes can introduce new forms of structural injustice. We contend that auditing structural injustice through social determinants must precede mitigation, and call for new technical developments that move beyond sensitive-attribute-centered notions of fairness as non-discrimination.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The child opportunity index: improving collaboration between community development and public health

    Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Nancy McArdle, Erin F Hardy, Unda Ioana Crisan, Bethany Romano, David Norris, Mikyung Baek, and Jason Reece. The child opportunity index: improving collaboration between community development and public health. Health affairs, 33 0 (11): 0 1948--1957, 2014

    1948

  2. [2]

    A reductions approach to fair classification

    Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dud \' k, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. A reductions approach to fair classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 60--69. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Fair regression: Quantitative definitions and reduction-based algorithms

    Alekh Agarwal, Miroslav Dud \' k, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. Fair regression: Quantitative definitions and reduction-based algorithms. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 120--129. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    The social psychology of discrimination: Theory, measurement and consequences

    Ananthi Al Ramiah, Miles Hewstone, John F Dovidio, and Louis A Penner. The social psychology of discrimination: Theory, measurement and consequences. Making Equality Count: Irish and International Research Measuring Equality and Discrimination. Dublin, Ireland, The Equality Authority, 2010

    2010

  5. [5]

    What makes wrongful discrimination wrong? biases, preferences, stereotypes, and proxies

    Larry Alexander. What makes wrongful discrimination wrong? biases, preferences, stereotypes, and proxies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141 0 (1): 0 149--219, 1992

    1992

  6. [6]

    The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

    Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust in the United States

    Katrina Armstrong, Karima L Ravenell, Suzanne McMurphy, and Mary Putt. Racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust in the United States . American Journal of Public Health, 97 0 (7): 0 1283--1289, 2007

    2007

  8. [8]

    Grades are not normal: Improving exam score models using the logit-normal distribution

    Noah Arthurs, Ben Stenhaug, Sergey Karayev, and Chris Piech. Grades are not normal: Improving exam score models using the logit-normal distribution. International Educational Data Mining Society, 2019

    2019

Show all 148 references
  1. [9]

    Rényi fair inference

    Sina Baharlouei, Maher Nouiehed, Ahmad Beirami, and Meisam Razaviyayn. Rényi fair inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities

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

    2023

  3. [11]

    Barry Becker and Ronny Kohavi. Adult . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1996. DOI : https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    Inequality and Heterogeneity: A primitive Theory of Social Structure, volume 7

    Peter Michael Blau. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A primitive Theory of Social Structure, volume 7. Free Press New York, 1977

    1977

  5. [13]

    Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

    Pierre Bourdieu. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984

    1984

  6. [14]

    The social determinants of health: It's time to consider the causes of the causes

    Paula Braveman and Laura Gottlieb. The social determinants of health: It's time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Reports, 129: 0 19--31, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Socioeconomic status in health research: One size does not fit all

    Paula A Braveman, Catherine Cubbin, Susan Egerter, Sekai Chideya, Kristen S Marchi, Marilyn Metzler, and Samuel Posner. Socioeconomic status in health research: One size does not fit all. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 0 (22): 0 2879--2888, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Causally interpreting intersectionality theory

    Liam Kofi Bright, Daniel Malinsky, and Morgan Thompson. Causally interpreting intersectionality theory. Philosophy of Science, 83 0 (1): 0 60--81, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Building classifiers with independency constraints

    Toon Calders, Faisal Kamiran, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. Building classifiers with independency constraints. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pages 13--18. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Distributional assumptions in educational assessments analysis: Normal distributions versus generalized beta distribution in modeling the phenomenon of learning

    Jos \'e Alejandro Gonz \'a lez Campos. Distributional assumptions in educational assessments analysis: Normal distributions versus generalized beta distribution in modeling the phenomenon of learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106: 0 886--895, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    The effect of environmental regulation on employment in resource-based areas of china—an empirical research based on the mediating effect model

    Wenbin Cao, Hui Wang, and Huihui Ying. The effect of environmental regulation on employment in resource-based areas of china—an empirical research based on the mediating effect model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 0 (12): 0 1598, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Black Power, volume 48

    Stokely Carmichael, Charles V Hamilton, and Stokely Carmichael. Black Power, volume 48. Random House New York, 1967

    1967

  13. [21]

    Fairness in machine learning: A survey

    Simon Caton and Christian Haas. Fairness in machine learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04053, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    American Community Survey Design and Methodology

    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey Design and Methodology. American Community Survey (ACS), 1.0 edition, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    American Community Survey Design and Methodology

    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey Design and Methodology. American Community Survey (ACS), 2.0 edition, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey Design and Methodology

    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey Design and Methodology. American Community Survey (ACS), 3.0 edition, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    2023 ACS 1-Year PUMS Data Dictionary

    US Census Bureau. 2023 ACS 1-Year PUMS Data Dictionary. American Community Survey (ACS), 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    From race-based to race-conscious medicine: How anti-racist uprisings call us to act

    Jessica P Cerde \ n a, Marie V Plaisime, and Jennifer Tsai. From race-based to race-conscious medicine: How anti-racist uprisings call us to act. The Lancet, 396 0 (10257): 0 1125--1128, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Changing opportunity: Sociological mechanisms underlying growing class gaps and shrinking race gaps in economic mobility

    Raj Chetty, Will S Dobbie, Benjamin Goldman, Sonya Porter, and Crystal Yang. Changing opportunity: Sociological mechanisms underlying growing class gaps and shrinking race gaps in economic mobility. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Path-specific counterfactual fairness

    Silvia Chiappa. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7801--7808, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments

    Alexandra Chouldechova. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5 0 (2): 0 153--163, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning

    Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 63 0 (5): 0 82--89, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Equality of educational opportunity

    James S Coleman. Equality of educational opportunity. Integrated Education, 6 0 (5): 0 19--28, 1968

    1968

  24. [32]

    Social capital in the creation of human capital

    James S Coleman. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 0 S95--S120, 1988

    1988

  25. [33]

    A spatial analysis of variations in health access: Linking geography, socio-economic status and access perceptions

    Alexis J Comber, Chris Brunsdon, and Robert Radburn. A spatial analysis of variations in health access: Linking geography, socio-economic status and access perceptions. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10: 0 1--11, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Poverty and education

    Raewyn Connell. Poverty and education. Harvard Educational Review, 64 0 (2): 0 125--150, 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning

    Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness

    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

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color

    Kimberle Crenshaw. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    Fairness is not static: Deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies

    Alexander D'Amour, Hansa Srinivasan, James Atwood, Pallavi Baljekar, D Sculley, and Yoni Halpern. Fairness is not static: Deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pag...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, volume 87

    Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, volume 87. NYU Press, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning

    Frances Ding, Moritz Hardt, John Miller, and Ludwig Schmidt. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 6478--6490, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Empirical risk minimization under fairness constraints

    Michele Donini, Luca Oneto, Shai Ben-David, John S Shawe-Taylor, and Massimiliano Pontil. Empirical risk minimization under fairness constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2791--2801, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Fairness through awareness

    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

    2012

  35. [43]

    Discrimination and Disrespect

    Benjamin Eidelson. Discrimination and Disrespect. Oxford University Press, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    A social vulnerability index for disaster management

    Barry E Flanagan, Edward W Gregory, Elaine J Hallisey, Janet L Heitgerd, and Brian Lewis. A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8 0 (1), 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Incorporating area-level social drivers of health in predictive algorithms using electronic health record data

    Agata Foryciarz, Nicole Gladish, David H Rehkopf, and Sherri Rose. Incorporating area-level social drivers of health in predictive algorithms using electronic health record data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 32 0 (3), 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    An intersectional definition of fairness

    James R Foulds, Rashidul Islam, Kamrun Naher Keya, and Shimei Pan. An intersectional definition of fairness. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1918--1921. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Structural racism and health inequities: Old issues, new directions

    Gilbert C Gee and Chandra L Ford. Structural racism and health inequities: Old issues, new directions. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 8 0 (1): 0 115--132, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis

    Anthony Giddens. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Red Globe Press London, 1979

    1979

  41. [49]

    What is Race? Four Philosophical Views

    Joshua Glasgow, Sally Haslanger, Chike Jeffers, and Quayshawn Spencer. What is Race? Four Philosophical Views. Oxford University Press, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Beyond distributive fairness in algorithmic decision making: Feature selection for procedurally fair learning

    Nina Grgi \'c -Hla c a, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. Beyond distributive fairness in algorithmic decision making: Feature selection for procedurally fair learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness

    Alex Hanna, Remi Denton, Andrew Smart, and Jamila Smith-Loud. Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 501--512, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Equality of opportunity in supervised learning

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3315--3323, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Gender and race: (what) are they? (what) do we want them to be? NO \^U S , 34 0 (1): 0 31--55, 2000

    Sally Haslanger. Gender and race: (what) are they? (what) do we want them to be? NO \^U S , 34 0 (1): 0 31--55, 2000

    2000

  46. [54]

    Causal Inference: What If

    Miguel A Hern \'a n and James M Robins. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Where fairness fails: Data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse

    Anna Lauren Hoffmann. Where fairness fails: Data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society, 22 0 (7): 0 900--915, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Declining job quality in the united states: Explanations and evidence

    David R Howell and Arne L Kalleberg. Declining job quality in the united states: Explanations and evidence. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 0 (4): 0 1--53, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    What's sex got to do with machine learning? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 513--513, 2020

    Lily Hu and Issa Kohler-Hausmann. What's sex got to do with machine learning? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 513--513, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Achieving long-term fairness in sequential decision making

    Yaowei Hu and Lu Zhang. Achieving long-term fairness in sequential decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 9549--9557, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Principal fairness for human and algorithmic decision-making

    Kosuke Imai and Zhichao Jiang. Principal fairness for human and algorithmic decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10400, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in america, 1972

    Christopher Jencks. Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in america, 1972

    1972

  53. [61]

    Addressing social vulnerability to hazards

    Lorelei Juntunen. Addressing social vulnerability to hazards. Disaster Safety Review, 4 0 (2), 2005

    2005

  54. [62]

    Quantifying explainable discrimination and removing illegal discrimination in automated decision making

    Faisal Kamiran, Indr \.e Z liobait \.e , and Toon Calders. Quantifying explainable discrimination and removing illegal discrimination in automated decision making. Knowledge and Information Systems, 35 0 (3): 0 613--644, 2013

    2013

  55. [63]

    Algorithmic fairness and structural injustice: Insights from feminist political philosophy

    Atoosa Kasirzadeh. Algorithmic fairness and structural injustice: Insights from feminist political philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 349--356, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    The use and misuse of counterfactuals in ethical machine learning

    Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Andrew Smart. The use and misuse of counterfactuals in ethical machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 228--236, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    The Ethical Algorithm: The Science of Socially Aware Algorithm Design

    Michael Kearns and Aaron Roth. The Ethical Algorithm: The Science of Socially Aware Algorithm Design. Oxford University Press, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness

    Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2564--2572. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning

    Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas-Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 656--666, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible--the neighborhood atlas

    Amy JH Kind and William R Buckingham. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible--the neighborhood atlas. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378 0 (26): 0 2456, 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study

    Amy JH Kind, Steve Jencks, Jane Brock, Menggang Yu, Christie Bartels, William Ehlenbach, Caprice Greenberg, and Maureen Smith. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: A retrospective cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 161 0 (11): 0 765--774, 2014

    2014

  62. [70]

    intersectionally fair

    Youjin Kong. Are "intersectionally fair" ai algorithms really fair to women of color? a philosophical analysis. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 485--494, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies

    Charis E Kubrin and Eric A Stewart. Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44 0 (1): 0 165--197, 2006

    2006

  64. [72]

    Counterfactual fairness

    Matt Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4066--4076, 2017

    2017

  65. [73]

    The badness of discrimination

    Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen. The badness of discrimination. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9 0 (2): 0 167--185, 2006

    2006

  66. [74]

    Delayed impact of fair machine learning

    Lydia T Liu, Sarah Dean, Esther Rolf, Max Simchowitz, and Moritz Hardt. Delayed impact of fair machine learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3150--3158. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    Causal reasoning for algorithmic fairness

    Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, Matt Kusner, and Ricardo Silva. Causal reasoning for algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.05859, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Neighborhoods, obesity, and diabetes--a randomized social experiment

    Jens Ludwig, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lisa Gennetian, Emma Adam, Greg J Duncan, Lawrence F Katz, Ronald C Kessler, Jeffrey R Kling, Stacy Tessler Lindau, Robert C Whitaker, et al. Neighborhoods, obesity, and diabetes--a randomized social experiment. New England Journal Of Medicine, 3...

    2011

  69. [77]

    Survey on causal-based machine learning fairness notions

    Karima Makhlouf, Sami Zhioua, and Catuscia Palamidessi. Survey on causal-based machine learning fairness notions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09553, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review

    Ioannis Manisalidis, Elisavet Stavropoulou, Agathangelos Stavropoulos, and Eugenia Bezirtzoglou. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Frontiers in Public Health, 8: 0 14, 2020

    2020

  71. [79]

    Social Determinants of Health

    Michael Marmot and Richard Wilkinson. Social Determinants of Health. OUP Oxford, 2005

    2005

  72. [80]

    Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments

    J \'e r \'e mie Mary, Cl \'e ment Calauzenes, and Noureddine El Karoui. Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4382--4391, 2019

    2019

  73. [81]

    The prodigal paradigm returns: ecology comes back to sociology

    Douglas S Massey. The prodigal paradigm returns: ecology comes back to sociology. Does it Take a Village, pages 41--48, 2001

    2001

  74. [82]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning

    Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54 0 (6): 0 1--35, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Fairness in risk assessment instruments: Post-processing to achieve counterfactual equalized odds

    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

    2021

  76. [84]

    Prediction-based decisions and fairness: A catalogue of choices, assumptions, and definitions

    Shira Mitchell, Eric Potash, Solon Barocas, Alexander D'Amour, and Kristian Lum. Prediction-based decisions and fairness: A catalogue of choices, assumptions, and definitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07867, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Equality and discrimination

    Sophia Moreau. Equality and discrimination. pages 171--190, 2020

    2020

  78. [86]

    Fair inference on outcomes

    Razieh Nabi and Ilya Shpitser. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, pages 1931--1940, 2018

    1931

  79. [87]

    Learning optimal fair policies

    Razieh Nabi, Daniel Malinsky, and Ilya Shpitser. Learning optimal fair policies. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4674--4682. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  80. [88]

    Optimal training of fair predictive models

    Razieh Nabi, Daniel Malinsky, and Ilya Shpitser. Optimal training of fair predictive models. In Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pages 594--617. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics

    Arvind Narayanan. Translation tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, volume 1170, page 3, 2018

    2018

  82. [90]

    Causal conceptions of fairness and their consequences

    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

    2022

  83. [91]

    Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations

    Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366 0 (6464): 0 447--453, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Structural racism: A 60-year-old black woman with breast cancer

    Kristen Pallok, Fernando De Maio, and David A Ansell. Structural racism: A 60-year-old black woman with breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 380 0 (16): 0 1489--1493, 2019

    2019

  85. [93]

    Causality

    Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  86. [94]

    A review on fairness in machine learning

    Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55 0 (3): 0 1--44, 2022

    2022

  87. [95]

    Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms

    Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. The MIT Press, 2017

    2017

  88. [96]

    Legislating against discrimination: An international survey of anti-discrimination norms

    Dina Porat. Legislating against discrimination: An international survey of anti-discrimination norms. BRILL, 2005

    2005

  89. [97]

    Structural Injustice: Power, Advantage, and Human Rights

    Madison Powers and Ruth Faden. Structural Injustice: Power, Advantage, and Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019

    2019

  90. [98]

    Environmental regulation and employment in resource-based cities in china: The threshold effect of industrial structure transformation

    Bingtao Qin, Lei Liu, Le Yang, and Liming Ge. Environmental regulation and employment in resource-based cities in china: The threshold effect of industrial structure transformation. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 2022

    2022

  91. [99]

    A Theory of Justice

    John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971

    1971

  92. [100]

    Justice as Fairness: A Restatement

    John Rawls. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press, 2001

    2001

  93. [101]

    Communities and Crime

    Michael Redmond. Communities and Crime . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2009. DOI : https://doi.org/10.24432/C53W3X

    2009 doi

  94. [102]

    Environmental effects on public health: An economic perspective

    Kyriaki Remoundou and Phoebe Koundouri. Environmental effects on public health: An economic perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6 0 (8): 0 2160--2178, 2009

    2009

  95. [103]

    Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century

    Dorothy Roberts. Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century. New Press/ORIM, 2011

    2011

  96. [104]

    Teaching yourself about structural racism will improve your machine learning

    Whitney R Robinson, Audrey Renson, and Ashley I Naimi. Teaching yourself about structural racism will improve your machine learning. Biostatistics, 21 0 (2): 0 339--344, 2020

    2020

  97. [105]

    A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis

    Andrea Romei and Salvatore Ruggieri. A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 29 0 (5): 0 582--638, 2014

    2014

  98. [106]

    Chronic poverty and education: A review of literature

    Pauline M Rose and Caroline Dyer. Chronic poverty and education: A review of literature. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper, 0 (131), 2008

    2008

  99. [107]

    The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

    Richard Rothstein. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright Publishing, 2017

    2017

  100. [108]

    Interventional fairness: Causal database repair for algorithmic fairness

    Babak Salimi, Luke Rodriguez, Bill Howe, and Dan Suciu. Interventional fairness: Causal database repair for algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 793--810, 2019

    2019

  101. [109]

    Formalising anti-discrimination law in automated decision systems

    Holli Sargeant and M ns Magnusson. Formalising anti-discrimination law in automated decision systems. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 181--194, 2025

    2025

  102. [110]

    Simulation and analysis of gamma distribution in assessing delay rate completion of the curriculum in schools

    Reni Permata Sari, Muhammad Ihsan Dacholfany, Amir Khushk, and Wardhani Utami Dewi. Simulation and analysis of gamma distribution in assessing delay rate completion of the curriculum in schools. Sciencestatistics: Journal of Statistics, Probability, and Its Application, 3 0 (1...

    2025

  103. [111]

    Area deprivation and widening inequalities in us mortality, 1969--1998

    Gopal K Singh. Area deprivation and widening inequalities in us mortality, 1969--1998. American Journal of Public Health, 93 0 (7): 0 1137--1143, 2003

    1969

  104. [112]

    Beyond model interpretability: Socio-structural explanations in machine learning

    Andrew Smart and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. Beyond model interpretability: Socio-structural explanations in machine learning. AI & SOCIETY, pages 1--9, 2024

    2024

  105. [113]

    Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview

    Audrey Smedley. Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview. Routledge, 2018

    2018

  106. [114]

    Black Education: Myths and Tragedies

    Thomas Sowell. Black Education: Myths and Tragedies. ERIC, 1972

    1972

  107. [115]

    Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study

    Thomas Sowell. Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Yale University Press, 2004

    2004

  108. [116]

    Causation, Prediction, and Search

    Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines. Causation, Prediction, and Search. Springer New York, 1993

    1993

  109. [117]

    Explanation hacking: The perils of algorithmic recourse

    Emily Sullivan and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. Explanation hacking: The perils of algorithmic recourse. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11843, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  110. [118]

    University of California Regents v

    US Supreme Court. University of California Regents v. Bakke. Number 76-811. 438 U.S. 265, 1978

    1978

  111. [119]

    US Supreme Court. Gratz v. Bollinger. Number 02-516. 539 U.S. 244, 2003 a

    2003

  112. [120]

    Grutter v

    US Supreme Court. Grutter v. Bollinger. Number 02-241. 539 U.S. 306, 2003 b

    2003

  113. [121]

    Students for Fair Admissions, Inc

    US Supreme Court. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Number 20-1199. 600 U.S. 181, 2023 a

    2023

  114. [122]

    Students for Fair Admissions, Inc

    US Supreme Court. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. Number 21-707. 600 U.S. 181, 2023 b

    2023

  115. [123]

    Location matters: Geographic disparities and impact of coronavirus disease 2019

    Tina Q Tan, Ravina Kullar, Talia H Swartz, Trini A Mathew, Damani A Piggott, and Vladimir Berthaud. Location matters: Geographic disparities and impact of coronavirus disease 2019. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222 0 (12): 0 1951--1954, 2020

    2019

  116. [124]

    Tier Balancing : Towards dynamic fairness over underlying causal factors

    Zeyu Tang, Yatong Chen, Yang Liu, and Kun Zhang. Tier Balancing : Towards dynamic fairness over underlying causal factors. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023 a

    2023

  117. [125]

    What-is and how-to for fairness in machine learning: A survey, reflection, and perspective

    Zeyu Tang, Jiji Zhang, and Kun Zhang. What-is and how-to for fairness in machine learning: A survey, reflection, and perspective. ACM Computing Surveys, 55 0 (13s): 0 1--37, 2023 b . ISSN 0360-0300

    2023

  118. [126]

    Procedural fairness through decoupling objectionable data generating components

    Zeyu Tang, Jialu Wang, Yang Liu, Peter Spirtes, and Kun Zhang. Procedural fairness through decoupling objectionable data generating components. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  119. [127]

    Education and poverty

    Jandhyala BG Tilak. Education and poverty. Journal of Human Development, 3 0 (2): 0 191--207, 2002

    2002

  120. [128]

    Durable Inequality

    Charles Tilly. Durable Inequality. University of California Press, 1998

    1998

  121. [129]

    Job search and employment success: A quantitative review and future research agenda

    Edwin AJ van Hooft, John D Kammeyer-Mueller, Connie R Wanberg, Ruth Kanfer, and Gokce Basbug. Job search and employment success: A quantitative review and future research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 0 (5): 0 674, 2021

    2021

  122. [130]

    Fairness definitions explained

    Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. Fairness definitions explained. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare), pages 1--7. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  123. [131]

    Environmental factors influencing public health and medicine: Policy implications

    Rueben Warren, Bailus Walker Jr, and Vincent R Nathan. Environmental factors influencing public health and medicine: Policy implications. Journal of the National Medical Association, 94 0 (4): 0 185, 2002

    2002

  124. [132]

    World Report on Social Determinants of Health Equity

    World Health Organization . World Report on Social Determinants of Health Equity. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2025. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

    2025

  125. [133]

    Pc-fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness

    Yongkai Wu, Lu Zhang, Xintao Wu, and Hanghang Tong. Pc-fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, pages 3399--3409, 2019

    2019

  126. [134]

    Racial disparities in health status and access to healthcare: The continuation of inequality in the united states due to structural racism

    Ruqaiijah Yearby. Racial disparities in health status and access to healthcare: The continuation of inequality in the united states due to structural racism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77 0 (3-4): 0 1113--1152, 2018

    2018

  127. [135]

    Structural racism in historical and modern us health care policy: Study examines structural racism in historical and modern US health care policy

    Ruqaiijah Yearby, Brietta Clark, and Jos \'e F Figueroa. Structural racism in historical and modern us health care policy: Study examines structural racism in historical and modern US health care policy. Health Affairs, 41 0 (2): 0 187--194, 2022

    2022

  128. [136]

    Impact of geographic location on vitamin D status and bone mineral density

    Kyung-Jin Yeum, Byeng Chun Song, and Nam-Seok Joo. Impact of geographic location on vitamin D status and bone mineral density. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 0 (2): 0 184, 2016

    2016

  129. [137]

    Justice and the Politics of Difference

    Iris Marion Young. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 1990

    1990

  130. [138]

    Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model

    Iris Marion Young. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23 0 (1): 0 102--130, 2006

    2006

  131. [139]

    Structural injustice and the politics of difference

    Iris Marion Young. Structural injustice and the politics of difference. In Intersectionality and Beyond, pages 289--314. Routledge-Cavendish, 2008

    2008

  132. [140]

    Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment

    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...

    2017

  133. [141]

    Learning fair representations

    Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. Learning fair representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 325--333. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  134. [142]

    Equality of opportunity in classification: A causal approach

    Junzhe Zhang and Elias Bareinboim. Equality of opportunity in classification: A causal approach. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018 a

    2018

  135. [143]

    Fairness in decision-making -- the causal explanation formula

    Junzhe Zhang and Elias Bareinboim. Fairness in decision-making -- the causal explanation formula. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018 b

    2018

  136. [144]

    A causal framework for discovering and removing direct and indirect discrimination

    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

    2017

  137. [145]

    Fairness in learning-based sequential decision algorithms: A survey

    Xueru Zhang and Mingyan Liu. Fairness in learning-based sequential decision algorithms: A survey. In Handbook of Reinforcement Learning and Control, pages 525--555. Springer, 2021

    2021

  138. [146]

    How do fair decisions fare in long-term qualification? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18457--18469, 2020

    Xueru Zhang, Ruibo Tu, Yang Liu, Mingyan Liu, Hedvig Kjellstrom, Kun Zhang, and Cheng Zhang. How do fair decisions fare in long-term qualification? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18457--18469, 2020

    2020

  139. [147]

    Proceed with caution

    Annette Zimmermann and Chad Lee-Stronach. Proceed with caution. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52 0 (1): 0 6--25, 2022

    2022

  140. [148]

    Handling conditional discrimination

    Indre Z liobaite, Faisal Kamiran, and Toon Calders. Handling conditional discrimination. In 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining, pages 992--1001. IEEE, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.