mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

arXiv 2306.08394 ↗First posted 14 Jun 2023cs.CY cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work supports the contextual approach to fairness in EU non-discrimination legal framework and aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. For that, we analyze the legal notion of non-discrimination and differential treatment with the fairness definition Demographic Parity (DP) through Conditional Demographic Disparity (CDD). We train and compare different classifiers with fairness constraints to assess whether it is possible to reduce bias in the prediction while enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination laws. Our experimental results on three scenarios show that the in-processing bias mitigation algorithm leads to different performances in each of them. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification. These preliminary results encourage future work which will involve further case studies, metrics, and fairness notions.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jun 2023.

Builds on

15 of 57 references.

References · 15

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  2. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  3. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  4. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  5. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  6. 2021A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learningcited by 157
  7. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
  8. 2020Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 143
  9. 2022Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 125
  10. 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
  11. 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
  12. 2019Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 57
3 more
  1. 2019Conscientious Classification: A Data Scientist's Guide to Discrimination-Aware Classificationcited by 55
  2. 2021A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 24
  3. 2022The Theory of Artificial Immutability: Protecting Algorithmic Groups Under Anti-Discrimination Lawcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

5 papers.