Recognition: unknown
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
read the original abstract
Recent discussion in the public sphere about algorithmic classification has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for a probabilistic classification to be fair to different groups. We formalize three fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and we prove that except in highly constrained special cases, there is no method that can satisfy these three conditions simultaneously. Moreover, even satisfying all three conditions approximately requires that the data lie in an approximate version of one of the constrained special cases identified by our theorem. These results suggest some of the ways in which key notions of fairness are incompatible with each other, and hence provide a framework for thinking about the trade-offs between them.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Multi-User Dueling Bandits: A Fair Approach using Nash Social Welfare
The work establishes a regret lower bound of Ω(T^{2/3} min(K,D)^{1/3}) for fair multi-user dueling bandits with heterogeneous Condorcet winners and gives algorithms achieving matching upper bounds up to logs.
-
Revisiting Fairness Impossibility with Endogenous Behavior
Error-rate balance and predictive parity become compatible under endogenous behavior by adjusting stakes differently across groups, introducing a new form of unequal treatment in consequences.
-
Contextual Multi-Objective Optimization: Rethinking Objectives in Frontier AI Systems
Frontier AI needs contextual multi-objective optimization to select and balance multiple context-dependent objectives rather than relying on single stable goals.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.