# A Unifying Human-Centered AI Fairness Framework

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06944 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.06944/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [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)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [Counterfactual Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06856/) (2017)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.05807/) (2016)
- [Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.09457/) (2017)
- [Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.05144/) (2017)
- [Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.08452/) (2016)
- [AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.01943/) (2018)
- [Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.09207/) (2017)
- [Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.05239/) (2018)
- [A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.04422/) (2018)
- [Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.03586/) (2017)
- [A Convex Framework for Fair Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.02409/) (2017)
- [An Intersectional Definition of Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.08362/) (2018)
- [Automatically Neutralizing Subjective Bias in Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.09709/) (2019)
- [Accuracy and Fairness Trade-offs in Machine Learning: A Stochastic Multi-Objective Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.01132/) (2020)
- [Optimizing fairness tradeoffs in machine learning with multiobjective meta-models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12190/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical societal domains has amplified concerns about fairness, particularly regarding unequal treatment across sensitive attributes such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. While there has been substantial work on ensuring AI fairness, navigating trade-offs between competing notions of fairness as well as predictive accuracy remains challenging, creating barriers to the practical deployment of fair AI systems. To address this, we introduce a unifying human-centered fairness framework that systematically covers eight distinct fairness metrics, formed by combining individual and group fairness, infra-marginal and intersectional assumptions, and outcome-based and equality-of-opportunity (EOO) perspectives. This structure allows stakeholders to align fairness interventions with their values and contextual considerations. The framework uses a consistent and easy-to-understand formulation for all metrics to reduce the learning curve for non-experts. Rather than privileging a single fairness notion, the framework enables stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives, reflecting their priorities and facilitating multi-stakeholder compromises. We apply this approach to four real-world datasets: the UCI Adult census dataset for income prediction, the COMPAS dataset for criminal recidivism, the German Credit dataset for credit risk assessment, and the MEPS dataset for healthcare utilization. We show that adjusting weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics. Finally, through case studies in judicial decision-making and healthcare, we demonstrate how the framework can inform practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.