Fairness criteria through the lens of directed acyclic graphical models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A substantial portion of the literature on fairness in algorithms proposes, analyzes, and operationalizes simple formulaic criteria for assessing fairness. Two of these criteria, Equalized Odds and Calibration by Group, have gained significant attention for their simplicity and intuitive appeal, but also for their incompatibility. This chapter provides a perspective on the meaning and consequences of these and other fairness criteria using graphical models which reveals Equalized Odds and related criteria to be ultimately misleading. An assessment of various graphical models suggests that fairness criteria should ultimately be case-specific and sensitive to the nature of the information the algorithm processes.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 3.
6 papers.
- 2021Explaining Algorithmic Fairness Through Fairness-Aware Causal Path Decompositioncited by 17
- 2021Gradual (In)Compatibility of Fairness Criteriacited by 8
- 2024Fair CoVariance Neural Networkscited by 6
- 2024A Review of Fairness and A Practical Guide to Selecting Context-Appropriate Fairness Metrics in Machine Learningcited by 3
- 2024Learning Interpretable Fair Representationscited by 1
- 2022Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairnesscited by 0
- 2024A Review of Fairness and A Practical Guide to Selecting Context-Appropriate Fairness Metrics in Machine Learning10 Nov 2024
- 2024Fair CoVariance Neural Networks13 Sep 2024
- 2024Learning Interpretable Fair Representations24 Jun 2024
- 2022Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness27 Jul 2022
- 2021Gradual (In)Compatibility of Fairness Criteria9 Sep 2021
- 2021Explaining Algorithmic Fairness Through Fairness-Aware Causal Path Decomposition11 Aug 2021