# Public Perceptions of Fairness Metrics Across Borders

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16101 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16101/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.07524/) (2016)
- [On Fairness and Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.02012/) (2017)
- [Fairness of Exposure in Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07281/) (2018)
- [Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1408.6491/) (2014)
- [Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08559/) (2016)
- [Ranking with Fairness Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06840/) (2017)
- [Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.04783/) (2019)
- [Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.09548/) (2018)
- [Soliciting Stakeholders' Fairness Notions in Child Maltreatment Predictive Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01196/) (2021)
- [Exciting, Useful, Worrying, Futuristic: Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in 8 Countries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00081/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Which fairness metrics are appropriately applicable in your contexts? There may be instances of discordance regarding the perception of fairness, even when the outcomes comply with established fairness metrics. Several questionnaire-based surveys have been conducted to evaluate fairness metrics with human perceptions of fairness. However, these surveys were limited in scope, including only a few hundred participants within a single country. In this study, we conduct an international survey to evaluate public perceptions of various fairness metrics in decision-making scenarios. We collected responses from 1,000 participants in each of China, France, Japan, and the United States, amassing a total of 4,000 participants, to analyze the preferences of fairness metrics. Our survey consists of three distinct scenarios paired with four fairness metrics. This investigation explores the relationship between personal attributes and the choice of fairness metrics, uncovering a significant influence of national context on these preferences.