# The Price of Diversity

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03900 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03900/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.07524/) (2016)
- [A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02453/) (2018)
- [Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.05807/) (2016)
- [On Fairness and Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.02012/) (2017)
- [Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.08230/) (2017)
- [Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.05144/) (2017)
- [Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08626/) (2018)
- [Censoring Representations with an Adversary](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.05897/) (2015)
- [Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.00780/) (2019)
- [Satisfying Real-world Goals with Dataset Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.07558/) (2016)
- [Training Well-Generalizing Classifiers for Fairness Metrics and Other Data-Dependent Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.00028/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Systemic bias with respect to gender, race and ethnicity, often unconscious, is prevalent in datasets involving choices among individuals. Consequently, society has found it challenging to alleviate bias and achieve diversity in a way that maintains meritocracy in such settings. We propose (a) a novel optimization approach based on optimally flipping outcome labels and training classification models simultaneously to discover changes to be made in the selection process so as to achieve diversity without significantly affecting meritocracy, and (b) a novel implementation tool employing optimal classification trees to provide insights on which attributes of individuals lead to flipping of their labels, and to help make changes in the current selection processes in a manner understandable by human decision makers. We present case studies on three real-world datasets consisting of parole, admissions to the bar and lending decisions, and demonstrate that the price of diversity is low and sometimes negative, that is we can modify our selection processes in a way that enhances diversity without affecting meritocracy significantly, and sometimes improving it.