{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2023:S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ","short_pith_number":"pith:S6463ISJ","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"97b9eda249cb35e81b0ff0d9916f667c010479653e7323ab819a4669c9960418","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2302.03567","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"From Utilitarian to Rawlsian Designs for Algorithmic Fairness","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"Daniel E. Rigobon","submitted_at":"2023-02-07T16:28:10Z","abstract_excerpt":"There is a lack of consensus within the literature as to how `fairness' of algorithmic systems can be measured, and different metrics can often be at odds. In this paper, we approach this task by drawing on the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism and John Rawls. Informally, these two theories of distributive justice measure the `good' as either a population's sum of utility, or worst-off outcomes, respectively. We present a parameterized class of objective functions that interpolates between these two (possibly) conflicting notions of the `good'. This class is shown to represent a relaxation "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2302.03567","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CY","submitted_at":"2023-02-07T16:28:10Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.LG"],"title_canon_sha256":"9addd2f354ee6a46062a45aa146b1e34a550a5d0e225abed0775017ec7551f88","abstract_canon_sha256":"27764caef1a77dc251396728fcd01dfe64ec4440ebfbcf08af14537c3c3adb38"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347572Z","signature_b64":"DKYZioByuvW4VZ474WYH+0wr9N0tUO/wtLfgGhi0h7wi8IyzZQMbb2ygeVBahLnycqYZ2B+KunOiFN8lwr2LDw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"97b9eda249cb35e81b0ff0d9916f667c010479653e7323ab819a4669c9960418","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347104Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347104Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"From Utilitarian to Rawlsian Designs for Algorithmic Fairness","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"Daniel E. Rigobon","submitted_at":"2023-02-07T16:28:10Z","abstract_excerpt":"There is a lack of consensus within the literature as to how `fairness' of algorithmic systems can be measured, and different metrics can often be at odds. In this paper, we approach this task by drawing on the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism and John Rawls. Informally, these two theories of distributive justice measure the `good' as either a population's sum of utility, or worst-off outcomes, respectively. We present a parameterized class of objective functions that interpolates between these two (possibly) conflicting notions of the `good'. This class is shown to represent a relaxation "},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2302.03567","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2302.03567/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2302.03567","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2302.03567v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2302.03567","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"S6463ISJZM26","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"S6463ISJZM26QGYP","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"S6463ISJ","created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2412.07879","citing_title":"Understanding algorithmic fairness for clinical prediction in terms of subgroup net benefit and health equity","ref_index":26,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ","json":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/S6463ISJ"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/S6463ISJ","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2302.03567&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/S6463ISJZM26QGYP6DMZC33GPQ/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T05:39:38.347157+00:00"}