Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.08394 v1 pith:XS6EHISQ submitted 2023-06-14 cs.CY cs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.LG
keywords fairnesslegaldemographicnon-discriminationmetricsapproachbiascase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work supports the contextual approach to fairness in EU non-discrimination legal framework and aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. For that, we analyze the legal notion of non-discrimination and differential treatment with the fairness definition Demographic Parity (DP) through Conditional Demographic Disparity (CDD). We train and compare different classifiers with fairness constraints to assess whether it is possible to reduce bias in the prediction while enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination laws. Our experimental results on three scenarios show that the in-processing bias mitigation algorithm leads to different performances in each of them. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification. These preliminary results encourage future work which will involve further case studies, metrics, and fairness notions.

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. Full citation record

  1. Engineering the Law-Machine Learning Translation Problem: Developing Legally Aligned Models

    cs.CY 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A five-stage interdisciplinary framework integrates legal reasoning with ML development to design, evaluate, and select legally aligned models, illustrated with a hypothetical AML case study.

Pith tools