Maximal Fairness

MaryBeth Defrance, Tijl De Bie
4/12/2023
cs.CYcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 2 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Fairness in AI has garnered quite some attention in research, and increasingly also in society. The so-called "Impossibility Theorem" has been one of the more striking research results with both theoretical and practical consequences, as it states that satisfying a certain combination of fairness measures is impossible. To date, this negative result has not yet been complemented with a positive one: a characterization of which combinations of fairness notions are possible. This work aims to fill this gap by identifying maximal sets of commonly used fairness measures that can be simultaneously satisfied. The fairness measures used are demographic parity, equal opportunity, false positive parity, predictive parity, predictive equality, overall accuracy equality and treatment equality. We conclude that in total 12 maximal sets of these fairness measures are possible, among which seven combinations of two measures, and five combinations of three measures. Our work raises interest questions regarding the practical relevance of each of these 12 maximal fairness notions in various scenarios.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 2 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{defrance2023maximal,
  title  = {Maximal Fairness},
  author = {MaryBeth Defrance and Tijl De Bie},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2304.06057},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06057v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2304.06057.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2304.06057)

Discussion