Revisiting Fairness Impossibility with Endogenous Behavior

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06378v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:03:34 GMT
• Title: Revisiting Fairness Impossibility with Endogenous Behavior
• Abstract summary: We argue that fairness in strategic settings cannot be assessed solely by how algorithms map data into decisions.<n>Our results demonstrate that fairness in strategic settings cannot be assessed solely by how algorithms map data into decisions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In many real-world settings, institutions can and do adjust the consequences attached to algorithmic classification decisions, such as the size of fines, sentence lengths, or benefit levels. We refer to these consequences as the stakes associated with classification. These stakes can give rise to behavioral responses to classification, as people adjust their actions in anticipation of how they will be classified. Much of the algorithmic fairness literature evaluates classification outcomes while holding behavior fixed, treating behavioral differences across groups as exogenous features of the environment. Under this assumption, the stakes of classification play no role in shaping outcomes. We revisit classic impossibility results in algorithmic fairness in a setting where people respond strategically to classification. We show that, in this environment, the well-known incompatibility between error-rate balance and predictive parity disappears, but only by potentially introducing a qualitatively different form of unequal treatment. Concretely, we construct a two-stage design in which a classifier first standardizes its statistical performance across groups, and then adjusts stakes so as to induce comparable patterns of behavior. This requires treating groups differently in the consequences attached to identical classification decisions. Our results demonstrate that fairness in strategic settings cannot be assessed solely by how algorithms map data into decisions. Rather, our analysis treats the human consequences of classification as primary design variables, introduces normative criteria governing their use, and shows that their interaction with statistical fairness criteria generates qualitatively new tradeoffs. Our aim is to make these tradeoffs precise and explicit.

Related papers

• Beyond Flat Labels: Level-Restricted Contrastive Learning for Hierarchical Fine-Grained Vision Classification [50.20892407648858]
  Multimodal contrastive learning has enabled zero-shot visual classification by aligning images with textual categories.<n>Existing methods often produce predictions that are inconsistent across taxonomic levels.<n>We propose a group-balanced design, ensuring each taxonomic level receives adequate optimization.<n>We train our model with TreeOfLife-10M based on BioCLIP and evaluate it across multiple hierarchical classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T02:12:05Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Bipartite Ranking Fairness through a Model Agnostic Ordering Adjustment [54.179859639868646]
  We propose a model agnostic post-processing framework xOrder for achieving fairness in bipartite ranking. xOrder is compatible with various classification models and ranking fairness metrics, including supervised and unsupervised fairness metrics. We evaluate our proposed algorithm on four benchmark data sets and two real-world patient electronic health record repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T07:42:44Z)
• Non-Asymptotic Performance of Social Machine Learning Under Limited Data [45.48644055449902]
  This paper studies the probability of error associated with the social machine learning framework. It addresses the problem of classifying a stream of unlabeled data in a distributed manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T17:42:14Z)
• Counterpart Fairness -- Addressing Systematic between-group Differences in Fairness Evaluation [17.495053606192375]
  When using machine learning to aid decision-making, it is critical to ensure that an algorithmic decision is fair and does not discriminate against specific individuals/groups. Existing group fairness methods aim to ensure equal outcomes across groups delineated by protected variables like race or gender. In cases where systematic differences between groups play a significant role in outcomes, these methods may overlook the influence of non-protected variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T15:41:12Z)
• When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness [8.367620276482056]
  We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T16:53:52Z)
• Fair Tree Learning [0.15229257192293202]
  Various optimisation criteria combine classification performance with a fairness metric. Current fair decision tree methods only optimise for a fixed threshold on both the classification task as well as the fairness metric. We propose a threshold-independent fairness metric termed uniform demographic parity, and a derived splitting criterion entitled SCAFF -- Splitting Criterion AUC for Fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T13:40:25Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse [36.519629650529666]
  We propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level. We show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T16:35:06Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Pairwise Supervision Can Provably Elicit a Decision Boundary [84.58020117487898]
  Similarity learning is a problem to elicit useful representations by predicting the relationship between a pair of patterns. We show that similarity learning is capable of solving binary classification by directly eliciting a decision boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T05:35:16Z)
• Fairness Measures for Regression via Probabilistic Classification [0.0]
  Algorithmic fairness involves expressing notions such as equity, or reasonable treatment, as quantifiable measures that a machine learning algorithm can optimise. This is in part because classification fairness measures are easily computed by comparing the rates of outcomes, leading to behaviours such as ensuring the same fraction of eligible men are selected as eligible women. But such measures are computationally difficult to generalise to the continuous regression setting for problems such as pricing, or allocating payments. For the regression setting we introduce tractable approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency criteria by observing that they factorise as ratios of different conditional probabilities of the protected attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-16T21:53:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.