standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 10 of 12 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | THE COMPETING QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF 'FAIRNESS' THEMSELVES - catalogued, put into one notation, and then shown to be mutually unsatisfiable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | what the definitions of algorithmic fairness are, what each one assumes, and whether they can be held together Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a notationally consistent catalogue of fairness definitions, the choices and assumptions each rests on, and the impossibility results that separate them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a young field in which one word carries several formal meanings that cannot all be satisfied at once, so that two competing analyses of the same tool can both be arithmetically correct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | THE INCOMPATIBILITY IS NOT A PROPERTY OF ALGORITHMS. `the trade-off between different notions of fairness would apply even if a human were the one making the prediction`, and `Rejecting model-driven or automated decision-making is not a way to avoid these problems`. It is a property of predicting at all, under inequality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the conditions under which the definitions COULD agree are named and are both unreachable: equal base rates or perfect prediction. The paper calls them `trivial, degenerate, or even utopian (representing two very different utopias)` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the paper declines the job most readers want done: `The goal of this article is not to advance axiomatic definitions of fairness but to summarize the definitions and results ... formalized to date`. It catalogues a disagreement rather than settling it, and says so in the introduction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and it names the gap its own subject cannot close: `gaps between mathematically convenient formalism and the larger social goals that many of these concepts were introduced to address`. THAT IS THE OPERATIONALISATION GAP, NAMED AS SUCH, by a paper whose subject is operationalisations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the object being predicted is already an abstraction of the thing anyone cares about: policy goals are `sometimes clumsily, abstracted and formulated to fit into a prediction task`, and the choices that do it sit outside the model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the decision itself is flattened before any of this begins: a judge's options are many, `in this literature, this decision is often reduced to A BINARY DECISION - RELEASE OR DETAIN`. Every fairness metric in the catalogue is defined over that binary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the authors record the standing criticism of their own field without dismissing it: quantitative notions of fairness `can funnel our thinking into narrow silos where we aim to make adjustments to a decision-making process, rather than to address the structural conditions that sustain inequality in society` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether the incompatibility is an artefact of using algorithms at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the algorithmic explanation - the trade-off 'would apply even if a human were the one making the prediction', so refusing automation does not avoid it · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | under what conditions the two COMPAS criteria COULD both hold, worked out formally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: any hope of reconciliation in practice - it requires equal recidivism rates across racial groups, or a group that never experiences an outcome, or perfect prediction · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether formal fairness work is worth doing at all, against its own critics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing on either side, and the paper says so: the criticisms are 'rightly pointed out', and formalism 'should not be dismissed as necessarily preserving the status quo'. Both are asserted; neither is tested · outcome: partial | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | algorithmic fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: algorithmic fairness | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equal false positive rates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equal false positive rates | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equal positive predictive values Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equal positive predictive values | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | calibration within groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: calibration within groups | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sufficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sufficiency | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | separation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: separation | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quantitative notions of fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: quantitative notions of fairness | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | structural conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural conditions | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of true positive rates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equality of true positive rates | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of false negative rates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equality of false negative rates | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equal opportunity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equal opportunity | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | error rate balance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error rate balance | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equalized odds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equalized odds | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of negative predictive value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of false omission rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equality of false omission rate | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of positive predictive value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equality of false discovery rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equality of false discovery rate | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | predictive parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: predictive parity | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | avoiding disparate mistreatment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: avoiding disparate mistreatment | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | treatment equality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: treatment equality | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | demographic parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: demographic parity | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | statistical parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical parity | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | group fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: group fairness | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Conditional demographic parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Conditional demographic parity | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | fairness through unawareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fairness through unawareness | concepts[25] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | anticlassification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: anticlassification | concepts[26] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | treatment parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: treatment parity | concepts[27] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metric fairness | concepts[28] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | individual fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: individual fairness | concepts[29] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | m-Lipschitz property Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: m-Lipschitz property | concepts[30] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | perfect metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perfect metric fairness | concepts[31] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | individual counterfactual fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: individual counterfactual fairness | concepts[32] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conditional counterfactual fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conditional counterfactual fairness | concepts[33] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | counterfactual parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: counterfactual parity | concepts[34] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | Calibration within groups → sufficiency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. The paper says calibration within groups implies sufficiency, and describes a converse after applying a function to a sufficient score. Logical implication between criteria is not one of the eight edge types. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | metric fairness → unawareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. When the metric uses only insensitive variables, the paper says metric fairness implies unawareness. Logical implication is not one of the eight edge types. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | individual counterfactual fairness → conditional counterfactual fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. The paper orders individual counterfactual fairness above conditional counterfactual fairness in strength. A stronger-than relation is not one of the eight edge types. | unhoused_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | conditional counterfactual fairness → counterfactual parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. The paper orders conditional counterfactual fairness above counterfactual parity in strength. A stronger-than relation is not one of the eight edge types. | unhoused_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | fairness - NOT ONE DEFINITION BUT SEVERAL FORMAL ONES, AND THE PAPER'S RESULT IS THAT THEY CANNOT ALL HOLD: `Although each flavor of fairness definition ... formalizes an intuitive notion of fairness, these definitions are not mathematically or morally compatible in general` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `bias` - THE PAPER CALLS IT OVERLOADED AND GIVES THE DRIFT: `a now overloaded word that, in popular media, has come to mean that the model's performance (however defined) unjustifiably differs along social axes such as race, gender, and class`. The parenthesis is the point Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE COMPAS DISPUTE - two analyses of one tool, both correct. ProPublica: it `does not satisfy equal false positive rates by race`. Northpointe: it `satisfies equal positive predictive values` and calibration within groups. NEITHER SIDE MISCALCULATED. They used different definitions of the same word Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `no harmony` - the paper's verdict on the attempts to reconcile them: `Much of the subsequent conversation consisted of either trying to harmonize these definitions ... or asserting that one or the other is correct. As it turns out, there can be no harmony among definitions in a world where inequality and imperfect prediction are the reality` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the formal conditions for agreement, stated exactly: SUFFICIENCY implies equality of positive predictive values, SEPARATION implies equality of false positive rates, and both hold together only if recidivism rates and score distributions are the same across racial groups, or some group never experiences an outcome at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | algorithmic fairness - a name for a research field, and the paper notes the questions are older than it: `it resembles older work ... since the 1960s, psychometricians have studied the fairness of educational tests based on their ability to predict performance` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of true positive rates - equality across groups in the true-positive rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of false negative rates - equality across groups in the false-negative rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equal opportunity - the paper's name for equality of true-positive and false-negative rates considered alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | error rate balance - Chouldechova's name for the combined outcome-conditioned fairness notions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equalized odds - Hardt and colleagues' name for the combined outcome-conditioned fairness notions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of negative predictive value - equality across groups in negative predictive value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of false omission rate - equality across groups in false omission rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of positive predictive value - equality across groups in positive predictive value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | equality of false discovery rate - equality across groups in false discovery rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | predictive parity - another name for equality of positive predictive value and false discovery rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | avoiding disparate mistreatment - Zafar and colleagues' collective name for the four predictive-measure pairs plus equal accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[16] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | treatment equality - a fairness definition based on the ratio of false negatives to false positives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[17] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | demographic parity - equal decision rates across groups irrespective of outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[18] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | statistical parity - an alternative name for demographic parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[19] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | group fairness - an alternative name for demographic parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[20] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Conditional demographic parity - parity within strata, expressed as conditional independence of decision and sensitive group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[21] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | fairness through unawareness - conditional demographic parity when conditioning on insensitive variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[22] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | anticlassification - conditional demographic parity when conditioning on insensitive variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[23] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | treatment parity - conditional demographic parity when conditioning on insensitive variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[24] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | metric fairness - requiring closeness under a similarity metric to imply closeness in decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[25] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | individual fairness - an alternative name for metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[26] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | m-Lipschitz property - an alternative mathematical name for metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[27] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | perfect metric fairness - Rothblum and Yona's name for metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[28] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | individual counterfactual fairness - the strongest listed counterfactual criterion, requiring decision equality for every individual Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[29] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conditional counterfactual fairness - the intermediate counterfactual criterion, requiring conditional mean-decision equality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[30] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | counterfactual parity - the weakest listed counterfactual criterion, requiring population mean-decision equality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[31] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → both positions in the COMPAS dispute, insofar as either claimed to be THE fairness answer - 'there can be no harmony among definitions in a world where inequality and imperfect prediction are the reality' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the impossibility results of Kleinberg et al. and Chouldechova, restated here in one notation and set against a public case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → the psychometric literature on test fairness running back to the 1960s, named as the older form of the same question Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | equal false positive rates —distinct-from→ equal positive predictive values Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | quantitative notions of fairness —contrasted-with→ structural conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | equality of true positive rates —renamed-across-fields→ equal opportunity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper reports Hardt et al.'s unhedged name for this condition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says this condition 'has been called equal opportunity' by one author; a name, and renamed-across-fields is loose. also in: equality of true positive rates · equal opportunity | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | separation —renamed-across-fields→ error rate balance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper gives source-specific names for the same combined outcome-conditioned fairness notions. also in: separation · error rate balance | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | separation —renamed-across-fields→ equalized odds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper gives source-specific names for the same combined outcome-conditioned fairness notions. also in: separation · equalized odds | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Conditional demographic parity —same-as→ separation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: Data = Y · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The equivalence is asserted without epistemic hedge but explicitly scoped to conditioning on outcome Y.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but conditional demographic parity equals separation only when Data = Y; same-as is conditional. also in: Conditional demographic parity · separation | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Conditional demographic parity —same-as→ fairness through unawareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: Data = X (the insensitive variables) · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The equivalence is asserted without epistemic hedge under the paper's explicit Data = X condition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'it' = conditional demographic parity (previous sentence); the equivalence holds only when Data = X. | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Conditional demographic parity —same-as→ anticlassification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: Data = X (the insensitive variables) · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The equivalence is asserted without epistemic hedge under the paper's explicit Data = X condition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'it' = conditional demographic parity (previous sentence); the equivalence holds only when Data = X. also in: Conditional demographic parity · anticlassification | concept_edges[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Conditional demographic parity —same-as→ treatment parity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. holds when: Data = X (the insensitive variables) · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The equivalence is asserted without epistemic hedge under the paper's explicit Data = X condition.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'it' = conditional demographic parity (previous sentence); the equivalence holds only when Data = X. also in: Conditional demographic parity · treatment parity | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | metric fairness —same-as→ individual fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper unhedgedly says metric fairness is also known as individual fairness. also in: metric fairness · individual fairness | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | metric fairness —same-as→ m-Lipschitz property Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper unhedgedly gives the m-Lipschitz property as another name for metric fairness. also in: metric fairness · m-Lipschitz property | concept_edges[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | metric fairness —same-as→ perfect metric fairness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper unhedgedly gives perfect metric fairness as another name for metric fairness. also in: metric fairness · perfect metric fairness | concept_edges[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE FIELD'S OWN ABSTRACT DIAGNOSES IT: rapid growth has led to `wildly inconsistent motivations, terminology, and notation, presenting a serious challenge for cataloging and comparing definitions` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT MERELY INCONSISTENT, THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE: `these definitions are not mathematically or morally compatible in general` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ProPublica found COMPAS fails equal false positive rates by race; Northpointe showed it satisfies equal positive predictive values and calibration within groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | there can be no harmony among fairness definitions where inequality and imperfect prediction are real Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the two criteria can hold together only if recidivism rates and score distributions are equal across racial groups, or some group never experiences an outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and those conditions are named as unreachable: `trivial, degenerate, or even utopian (representing two very different utopias)` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE TRADE-OFF IS NOT ABOUT ALGORITHMS: it `would apply even if a human were the one making the prediction`, and rejecting automation `is not a way to avoid these problems` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the paper names the operationalisation gap in its own introduction: `gaps between mathematically convenient formalism and the larger social goals that many of these concepts were introduced to address` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | policy goals are `sometimes clumsily, abstracted and formulated to fit into a prediction task` before any fairness metric applies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a judge's many options are often reduced in this literature to a binary decision, release or detain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the questions are older than the field's name: `since the 1960s, PSYCHOMETRICIANS have studied the fairness of educational tests based on their ability to predict performance` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the paper declines to arbitrate: `the goal ... is not to advance axiomatic definitions of fairness but to summarize` what has been formalized Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | declared A NOW OVERLOADED WORD which, in popular media, has come to mean that a model's performance - HOWEVER DEFINED - unjustifiably differs along social axes such as race, gender and class Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | false positive rates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false positive rates | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | positive predictive values Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: positive predictive values | content_tags.statistics[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.