A Systematic Approach to Group Fairness in Automated Decision Making
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While the field of algorithmic fairness has brought forth many ways to measure and improve the fairness of machine learning models, these findings are still not widely used in practice. We suspect that one reason for this is that the field of algorithmic fairness came up with a lot of definitions of fairness, which are difficult to navigate. The goal of this paper is to provide data scientists with an accessible introduction to group fairness metrics and to give some insight into the philosophical reasoning for caring about these metrics. We will do this by considering in which sense socio-demographic groups are compared for making a statement on fairness.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2021.
Builds on
11 of 36 references.
References · 11
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 148
- 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
- 2020On the Moral Justification of Statistical Paritycited by 30
- 2021Group Fairness: Independence Revisitedcited by 20
- 2020Addressing multiple metrics of group fairness in data-driven decision makingcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.