mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit and Differential Variance

arXiv 2112.05630 ↗First posted 10 Dec 2021cs.LG cs.CYcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Discrimination in selection problems such as hiring or college admission is often explained by implicit bias from the decision maker against disadvantaged demographic groups. In this paper, we consider a model where the decision maker receives a noisy estimate of each candidate's quality, whose variance depends on the candidate's group -- we argue that such differential variance is a key feature of many selection problems. We analyze two notable settings: in the first, the noise variances are unknown to the decision maker who simply picks the candidates with the highest estimated quality independently of their group; in the second, the variances are known and the decision maker picks candidates having the highest expected quality given the noisy estimate. We show that both baseline decision makers yield discrimination, although in opposite directions: the first leads to underrepresentation of the low-variance group while the second leads to underrepresentation of the high-variance group. We study the effect on the selection utility of imposing a fairness mechanism that we term the γ-rule (it is an extension of the classical four-fifths rule and it also includes demographic parity). In the first setting (with unknown variances), we prove that under mild conditions, imposing the γ-rule increases the selection utility -- here there is no trade-off between fairness and utility. In the second setting (with known variances), imposing the γ-rule decreases the utility but we prove a bound on the utility loss due to the fairness mechanism.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2021.

Builds on

11 of 34 references.

References · 11

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  3. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  4. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
  5. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 174
  6. 2019On the Fairness of Disentangled Representationscited by 144
  7. 2019Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy?cited by 50
  8. 2018Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 29
  9. 2020Interventions for Ranking in the Presence of Implicit Biascited by 27
  10. 2020On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variancecited by 14
  11. 2019Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection, With an Application to the Design of Policies for University Admissionscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

9 papers.