mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Within-Group Fairness of Screening Classifiers

arXiv 2302.00025 ↗First posted 31 Jan 2023cs.LG cs.CY cs.DScited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Screening classifiers are increasingly used to identify qualified candidates in a variety of selection processes. In this context, it has been recently shown that, if a classifier is calibrated, one can identify the smallest set of candidates which contains, in expectation, a desired number of qualified candidates using a threshold decision rule. This lends support to focusing on calibration as the only requirement for screening classifiers. In this paper, we argue that screening policies that use calibrated classifiers may suffer from an understudied type of within-group unfairness -- they may unfairly treat qualified members within demographic groups of interest. Further, we argue that this type of unfairness can be avoided if classifiers satisfy within-group monotonicity, a natural monotonicity property within each of the groups. Then, we introduce an efficient post-processing algorithm based on dynamic programming to minimally modify a given calibrated classifier so that its probability estimates satisfy within-group monotonicity. We validate our algorithm using US Census survey data and show that within-group monotonicity can be often achieved at a small cost in terms of prediction granularity and shortlist size.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2023.

Builds on

32 of 78 references.

References · 32

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  4. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
  5. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  6. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  7. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  8. 2018Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classificationcited by 222
  9. 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 190
  10. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 174
  11. 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
  12. 2018Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankingscited by 124
20 more
  1. 2020Improving model calibration with accuracy versus uncertainty optimizationcited by 123
  2. 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
  3. 2020Mitigating Bias in Calibration Error Estimationcited by 101
  4. 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
  5. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
  6. 2021Soft Calibration Objectives for Neural Networkscited by 92
  7. 2017End-to-end Training for Whole Image Breast Cancer Diagnosis using An All Convolutional Designcited by 88
  8. 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
  9. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  10. 2020Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibrationcited by 79
  11. 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
  12. 2019Policy Learning for Fairness in Rankingcited by 74
  13. 2019Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvementscited by 70
  14. 2022Selection by Prediction with Conformal p-valuescited by 69
  15. 2020Moment Multicalibration for Uncertainty Estimationcited by 63
  16. 2022A Unifying Theory of Distance from Calibrationcited by 53
  17. 2019Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraintscited by 20
  18. 2021Maxmin-Fair Ranking: Individual Fairness under Group-Fairness Constraintscited by 18
  19. 2022Improving Screening Processes via Calibrated Subset Selectioncited by 16
  20. 2022Simpson's Paradox in Recommender Fairness: Reconciling differences between per-user and aggregated evaluationscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

2 papers.