1 Introduction
Machine learning has embedded itself deep inside many of the decisionmaking systems that used to be driven by humans. Whether it’s resume filtering for jobs, or admissions to college, credit ratings for loans, or all components of the criminal justice pipeline, automated tools are being used to find patterns, make predictions, and assist in decisions that have significant impact on our lives.
The “rise of the machines” has raised concerns about the fairness of these processes. Indeed, while one of the rationales for introducing automated decision making was to replace subjective human decisions by “objective” algorithmic methods, a large body of research has shown that machine learning is not free from the kinds of discriminatory behavior humans display. This area of algorithmic fairness now contains many ideas about how to prevent algorithms from learning bias^{1}^{1}1Here, and in the rest of this paper, we will typically use “bias” to denote discriminatory behavior in society, rather than the statistical notion of bias. Similarly, “discriminate” will refer to the societal notion. and how to design algorithms that are “fairnessaware.”
Strangely though, the basic question “what does it mean for an algorithm to be fair?” has gone underexamined. While many papers have proposed quantitative measures of fairness, these measures rest on unstated assumptions about fairness in society. As we shall show, these assumptions, if brought into the open, are often mutually incompatible, rendering it difficult to compare proposals for fair algorithms with each other.
1.1 Our Work
Definitions of fairness, nondiscrimination, and justice in society have been debated in the social science community extensively, from Rawls to Nozick to Roemer, and many others. A parallel debate is ongoing within the computer science community, including discussions of individual fairness [8] vs. group fairness (e.g., disparate impact’s fourfifths rule [10] and a difference formulation of a discrimination score [3, 13, 14, 20, 25]). These discussions reveal differences in the understood meaning of “fairness” in decisionmaking centering around two different interpretations of the extent to which factors outside of an individual’s control should be factored into decisions made about them and the extent to which abilities are innate and measurable. This tension manifests itself in the debates between “equality of outcomes” and “equality of treatment” that have long appeared under many names. Our contribution to this debate will be to make these definitions mathematically precise and reveal the axiomatic differences at the heart of this debate. (We will review the literature in light of these definitions in Section 5.)
In order to make fairness mathematically precise, we tease out the difference between beliefs and mechanisms to make clear what aspects of this debate are opinions and which choices and policies logically follow from those beliefs. Our goal is to make the embedded value systems transparent so that the belief system can be chosen, allowing mechanisms to be proven compatible with these beliefs.
We will create this separation of concerns by developing a mathematical theory of fairness in terms of transformations between different kinds of spaces. Our primary insight can be summarized as:
To study algorithmic fairness is to study the interactions between different spaces that make up the decision pipeline for a task.
We will first argue that there are more spaces that are implicitly involved in the decisionmaking pipeline than are typically specified. In fact, it is the conflation of these spaces that leads to much of the confusion and disagreement in the literature on algorithmic fairness. Next, we will reinterpret notions of fairness, structural bias, and nondiscrimination as quantifying the way that spaces are transformed to each other. With this framework in place, we can make formal tensions between fairness and nondiscrimination by revealing fundamental differences in worldviews underlying these definitions.
Our specific contributions are as follows:

We introduce the idea of (taskdependent) spaces that interact in any learning task, specifically introducing the ts that captures the notion that features of interest for decisionmaking are necessarily imperfect proxies for the construct of interest.

We reinterpret notions of fairness, structural bias, and nondiscrimination mathematically as functions of transformations between these spaces.

Surprisingly, we show that fairness can be guaranteed only with very strong assumptions about the world: namely, that “what you see is what you get,” i.e., that we can correctly measure individual fitness for a task regardless of issues of bias and discrimination. We complement this with an impossibility result, saying that if this strong assumption is dropped, then fairness can no longer be guaranteed.

We develop a theory of nondiscrimination based on a quantification of structural bias. Building nondiscriminatory decision algorithms is shown to require a different worldview, namely that “we’re all equal,” i.e., that all groups are assumed to have similar abilities with respect to the task in the construct space.

We show that virtually all methods that propose to address algorithmic fairness make implicit assumptions about the nature of these spaces and how they interact with each other.
2 Spaces: Construct, Observed and Decision
If we consider our guiding informal understanding of fairness  that similar people should be treated similarly  in the context of algorithm design, we must begin by determining how people will be represented as inputs to the algorithm, and what associated notion of similarity on this representation is appropriate. These two choices will entirely determine what we mean by fairness, and there are many subtle choices that must be made in this determination as we build up to a formal definition. Fairnessaware algorithms (and indeed all algorithms in machine learning) can be viewed as mappings between spaces, and we will adopt this viewpoint. They take inputs from some feature space and return outputs in a decision space. The question then becomes how we should define points and the associated metric to precisely define these spaces. To illuminate some of the subtleties inherent in these choices, we’ll introduce what will be a running example of fairness in a college admissions decision.
In order to define a feature space, we must answer questions about what features should be included and how (and when) they should be measured. This description illuminates our first important distinction from a common setup of such a problem: the feature space itself is a representation of a chosen set of possibly hidden or unmeasurable constructs. Determining which features should be considered is part of the determination of how the decision should be made; representing those constructs in measurable form is a separate and important step in the process. This distinction motivates our first two definitions.
Definition 2.1 (ts (ts)).
The ts is a metric space consisting of individuals and a distance between them. It is assumed that the distance correctly captures closeness with respect to the task.
The ts is the space containing the features that we would like to make a decision based on. These are the “desired” or “true” features at the time chosen for the decision, and the ability to accurately measure similarity between people with respect to the task. This is the space representing the input to a decisionmaking process, if we had full access to it.
In reality, we might not know these features or even the true similarity between individuals. All we have is what we measure or observe, and this leads us to our next definition.
Definition 2.2 (*os).
The os (with respect to ) is a metric space . We assume an observation process that generates an entity from a person .
The final part of a task is a decision space of outcomes.
Definition 2.3 (*ds).
A ds is a metric space , where is a space of outcomes and is a metric defined on . A task can be viewed as the process of finding a map from or to .
How the spaces interact.
Algorithmic decisionmaking is a set of mappings between the three spaces defined above. The desired outcome is a mapping from to via an unknown and complex function of features that lie in the ts.
In order to implement an algorithm that predicts the desired outcome, we must first extract usable data from : this is a collection of mappings from to . The features in might be:

noisy variants of the where is some stochastic function,

some unknown (and noisy) combination of , or

new attributes that are independent of any of the .
Further, some of the might even be omitted entirely when generating .
Our goal is (ideally) to determine . We instead design an algorithm that learns i.e a mapping from to . The hope is that .
2.1 Examples
The easiest way to understand the interactions between the ds, the ts and the os is to start with a prediction task, posit features that seem to control the prediction, and then imagine ways of measuring these features. We provide a number of such examples in Table 1, described in more detail below.
ds  ts  os 

Performance in college  Intelligence  IQ 
Performance in college  Success in High School  GPA 
Recividism  Propensity to commit crime  Family history of crime 
Recidivism  Riskaverseness  Age 
Employee Productivity  Knowledge of job  Number of Years of Experience 
College Admission. Universities consider a number of factors when deciding who to admit to their university. One admissions goal might be to determine the likelihood that an admitted student will be successful in college, and the factors considered can include things like intelligence, high school GPA, scores on standardized tests, extracurricular activities and so on. In this example, performance in college is the ds, while intelligence and success in high school are in the ts. Intelligence might be represented in the os by the result of an IQ test, while success in high school could be observed by high school GPA.
Recidivism Prediction. When an offender is eligible for parole, judges assess the likelihood that the offender will reoffend after being released as part of the parole decision. Many jurisdictions now use automated prediction methods like COMPAS[17] to generate such a likelihood. With the goal of predicting the likelihood of recidivism (the ds), such an algorithm might want to determine an individual’s propensity for criminal activity and their level of riskaversion. These ts attributes could be modeled in the os by a family history of crime and the offender’s age.
Hiring. One of the most important criteria in hiring a new employee is their ability to succeed at a future job. As proxies, employers will use features like the college attended, GPA, previous work experience, interview performance and their overall resume. The ds in this case is employee productivity once hired, while a ts attribute is the applicant’s current knowledge of the job. One way to observe this knowledge (an attribute in the os) is by their number of years of experience at a similar job.
2.2 Quantifying transformations between spaces
We can describe the entire pipeline of algorithmic decisionmaking (feature extraction and measurement, prediction algorithms and even the underlying predictive mechanism) in the form of transformations between spaces. This is where the
metric structure of the spaces plays a role. As we will see, we can express the quality of the various transformations between spaces in terms of how distances (that capture dissimilarity between entities) change when one space is transformed into another. The reason to use (functions of) distances to compare spaces is because most learning tasks rely heavily on the underlying distance geometry of the space. By measuring how the distances change relative to the original space we can get a sense of how the task outcomes might be distorted.We introduce two different approaches to quantifying these transformations: one that is more “local” and one that compares how sets of points are transformed. We start with a standard measure of pointwise transformation cost.
Definition 2.4 ((additive) Distortion).
Let and be two metric spaces and let be a map from to . The distortion of is defined as the smallest value such that for all
The distortion is then the minimum achievable distortion over all mappings .
Notes.
While the above notion (and its multiplicative variant) is standard in the theoretical computer science literature, it is helpful to understand why it is justified in the context of algorithmic fairness. Distortion is commonly used as way to minimize the change of geometry when doing dimensionality reduction to make a task more efficiently solvable ^{2}^{2}2It is possible to take a more informationtheoretic perspective on the nature of transformations between spaces. For example, we could quantify the quality of a (stochastic) transformation by the amount of mutual information between the source and target spaces. While this is relevant when we wish to determine the degree to which we can reconstruct the source space from the target, it is not necessary for algorithmic decisionmaking. For example, it is not necessary that we be able to reconstruct the ts features from features in the os. But it will matter that individuals with similar features in the ts have similar features in the os.. The specific measure above is a special case of a general
additive distortion (where the norm is computed over the vector of distance differences). In this more general setting there are a number of approximation algorithms for estimating
when the “target space” is restricted to a line [5], a tree[1], or an ultrametric[9].There are many different ways to compare metric spaces using their distances. Distortion is a worstcase notion: it is controlled by the worstcase spread between a pair of distances in the two spaces. If instead we wished to measure distances between subsets of points in a metric space, there is a more appropriate notion.
Definition 2.5 (Coupling Measure).
Let
be sets with associated probability measures
. A probability measure over is a coupling measure if (the projection of on ) equals , and similarly for and . The space of all such coupling measures is denoted by .Definition 2.6 (*wd).
Let be a metric space and let be two subsets of . Let be a probability measure defined on , which in turn induces probability measures on respectively.
The wd between is given by
The wd finds an optimal transportation between the two sets and computes the resulting distance. It is a metric when is.
Finally, we need a metric to compare subsets of points that lie in different metric spaces. Intuitively, we would like some distance function that determines whether the two subsets have the same shape with respect to the two underlying metrics. We will make use of a distance function called the GromovWasserstein distance [16] that is derived from the wd above.
Definition 2.7 (*gw).
Let be two metric spaces with associated probability measures . The gw between and is given by
Intuitively, the gw computes the wd between the sets of pairs of points, to determine whether the two point sets determine similar sets of distances.
We note that both and can be computed using the standard Hungarian algorithm for optimal transport. can be computed in time (where ) and can be computed in time .
3 A mathematical formulation of fairness and bias
We have now introduced three spaces that play a role in algorithmic decisionmaking: the ts, the os and the ds. We have also introduced ways to measure the fidelity with which spaces map to each other. Armed with these ideas, we can now describe how notions of fairness and bias can be expressed formally.
3.1 A definition of fairness
The definition of fairness is task specific, and prescribes desirable outcomes for a task. Since the solution to a task is a mapping from the ts to the ds , a definition of fairness should describe the properties of such a mapping. Inspired by the fairness definition due to Dwork et al.[8], we give the following definition of fairness:
Definition 3.1 (Fairness).
A mapping is said to be fair if objects that are close in are also close in . Specifically, fix two thresholds . Then is defined as  fair if for any ,
Note that the definition of fairness does not require any particular outcome for entities that are far apart in .
3.2 A worldview: what you see is what you get
The presence of the os complicates claims that datadriven decision making can be fair, since features in the observed space might not reflect the true value of the attributes that you would like to use to make the decision. In order to address this complication, given that the ts is unobservable, assumptions must be introduced about the points in the ts, or the mapping between the ts and os, or both.
One worldview focuses on the mapping between the ts and os by asserting that the ts and os are essentially the same. We call this worldview the wysiwyg view.
Axiom 3.1 (wysiwyg).
There exists a mapping such that the distortion is at most for some small . Or equivalently, the distortion between and is at most
In practice, we can think of as a very small number like .
3.3 A worldview: structural bias
But what if the ts isn’t accurately represented by the os? In the case of stochastic noise in the transformation between ts and os, fairness in the system may decrease for all decisions. This case can be handled using the wysiwyg worldview and usual techniques for accurate learning in the face of noise (see, e.g., [15]).
Unfortunately, in many realworld societal applications, the noise in this transformation is nonuniform in a societally biased way. To explain this structural bias, we start with the notion of a group: a collection of individuals that share a certain set of characteristics (such as gender, race, religion and so on). These characteristics are often historically and culturally defined (e.g., by the long history of racism in the United States). We represent groups as a partition of individuals into sets . In this work, we will think of a group membership as a characteristic of an individual; thus each of the ts, os, and ds admits a partition into groups, induced by the group memberships of individuals represented in these spaces.
Structural bias manifests itself in unequal treatment of groups. In order to quantify this notion, we first define the notion of
group skew
: the way in which group (geometric) structure might be distorted between spaces. What we wish to capture is the relative distortion of groups with respect to each other, rather than (for example) a scaling transformation that would transform all groups the same way.Let be a metric space partitioned into groups . Any probability measure defined on induces a measure on in the natural way. We can define a metric on via the operation . Now consider two such metric spaces , and their associated group metric spaces and measures
Definition 3.2 (Betweengroups distance).
The betweengroups distance between , with measures is
The betweengroups distance treats the groups in a space as individual “points”, and compares two collections of “points”. To capture the differential treatment of groups, we need to normalize this against a measure of how each group is distorted individually^{3}^{3}3
This is similar to how we might measure betweengroup and withingroup variance in statistical estimation problems like ANOVA.
.Definition 3.3 (Withingroup distance).
Let and be the two sets in the spaces corresponding to the group. Let . Then we define
We can now define a notion of group skew between two spaces.
Definition 3.4 (Group skew).
Let and be metric spaces with group partitioning and measures . The group skew between and is the quantity
There is a degenerate case in which group skew is not welldefined. This is when for each the sets and are identical in distance structure. In this (admittedly unlikely) setting, each will be zero, and thus . This can be interpreted as saying that when groups are identical in the two spaces, any small variation between groups is magnified greatly. To avoid this degenerate case, we will instead compute and on a perturbed version of the data, where each point is shifted randomly within a metric ball of radius . The parameter acts as a smoothing operator to avoid such degenerate cases. This effectively adds to each of the numerator and denominator, ensuring that the ratio is always well defined.
Using these definitions, we can now account for structural bias, which can be informally understood as the existence of more distortion between groups than there is within groups when mapping between the ts and the os, thus identifying when groups are treated differentially by the observation process.
Definition 3.5 (Structural Bias).
The metric spaces ts and os admit structural bias if the group skew .
3.3.1 NonDiscrimination: a toplevel goal
Since group skew is a property of two metric spaces, we can consider the impact of group skew between the ts and os (structural bias as defined above), between the os and the ds, and between the ts and the ds. While colloquially “structural bias” can refer to any of these (since the ts and os are often conflated), in this paper we will give different names to group skew depending on the relevant spaces used in the mapping. We will refer to group skew in the decisionmaking procedure (the mapping from os to ds) as direct discrimination.
Definition 3.6 (Direct Discrimination).
The metric spaces and admit direct discrimination if the group skew .
Note that the group structure is the direct result of a mapping , so we can think of direct discrimination as a function of this mapping.
Since group membership is usually defined based on innate or culturally defined characteristics that individuals have no ability to change, it is often considered unacceptable (and in some cases, illegal) to use group membership as part of a decisionmaking process. Thus, in decisionmaking nondiscrimination is often a highlevel goal. This is sometimes termed “fairness,” but we will distinguish the terms here.
Definition 3.7 (NonDiscrimination).
Let and . A mapping is nondiscriminatory if the group skew .
Thus, this worldview is primarily concerned with achieving nondiscrimination by avoiding both structural bias and direct discrimination. Given the social history of this type of group skew occurring in a way that disadvantages specific subpopulations it makes sense that this is a common toplevel goal. Unfortunately, it is hard to achieve directly, since we have no knowledge of the ts and the existence of structural bias precludes us from using the os as a reasonable representation of the ts (as is done in the wysiwyg worldview).
3.3.2 An Axiomatic Assumption: we’re all equal
Instead, a common underlying assumption of this worldview, that we will make precise here, is that in the ts all groups look essentially the same. In other words, it asserts that there are no innate differences between groups of individuals defined via certain potentially discriminatory characteristics. This latter axiom of fairness appears implicitly in much of the literature on statistical discrimination and disparate impact.
There is an alternate interpretation of this axiom: the groups aren’t equal, but for the purposes of the decisionmaking process they should be treated as if they were. In this interpretation, the idea is that any difference in the groups’ performance (e.g., academic achievement) is due to factors outside their individual control (e.g., the quality of their neighborhood school) and should not be taken into account in the decision making process [18]. This interpretation has the same mathematical outcome as if the equality of groups is assumed as true, and thus we will refer to a single axiom to cover these two interpretations.
Axiom 3.2 (wae (wae)).
Let with measure be partitioned into groups . There exists some such that for all , .
It is useful to note that the wae is a property of the ts, whereas the wysiwyg describes the relation between the ts and os. Note also that the definition of structural bias does not itself assume the wae  in fact, there could be structural bias that acted in addition to existing true differences between groups present in the ts to further separate the groups in the os. However, because of the lack of knowledge about the ts when assuming the existence of structural bias, the wae will often be assumed in practice under the structural bias worldview.
3.4 Comparing Worldviews
While we introduce these two axioms as different world views or belief systems, they can also be strategic choices. Whatever the motivation (which is ultimately mathematically irrelevant), the choice in axiom is critical to a decisionmaking process. The chosen axiom determines what fairness means by giving enough structure to the ts or the mapping between the ts and os to enforce fairness despite a lack of knowledge of the ts. We discuss the subtleties of the axiomatic choice here and will return to the enforcement of fairness based on this axiomatic choice in the next section.
The choice of worldview is heavily dependent on the specific attributes and task considered, and on the algorithm designer’s beliefs about how observations of these attributes align with the associated constructs. Roemer identifies the goal of such choices as ensuring that negative attributes that are due to an individual’s circumstances of birth or to random chance should not be held against them, while individuals should be held accountable for their effort and choices [18]. He suggests that differences in worldview can be attributable to when in an individual’s development the playing field should be leveled and after what point an individual’s own choices and effort should be taken into account. In our decisionmaking formulation, the decision about when amounts to a decision of which axiom to believe at the point in time the decision will be made. If the decision is being made while the playing field should be leveled, then the wae axiom should be assumed. If the decision is being made while only an individual’s own efforts should be included in the decision, then the wysiwyg axiom may be the right choice.
3.5 Mechanisms
We can think of the axioms as assumed relationships between the ts and the os (or operating within the ts), and fairness definitions as desirable outcomes (executions of tasks) that reflect these relationships. A mechanism is then a constructive expression of a definition: it is a mapping (or set of mappings) from to that allow the definition to be satisfied. In effect, a welldesigned mechanism working from a specific set of axioms should yield a fair outcome.
Formally, a mechanism is a mapping that satisfies certain properties. First and foremost, a mechanism should be nontrivial. For example, if the decision space is (e.g for binary classification), a mechanism that assigned a to each point would be trivial.
Definition 3.8 (rich).
A mechanism is *rich if for each , .
There are then two types of mechanisms that (we will show) provide guarantees under the two different world views described above: ifms (aiming to guarantee fairness) and gfms (aiming to guarantee nondiscrimination).
Definition 3.9 (ifm (ifm)).
Fix a tolerance . A mechanism ifm is a *rich mapping such that .
The ifm asserts that the mechanism for decision making treats people similarly if they are close, and can treat them differently if they are far, in the observed space.
Definition 3.10 (gfm (gfm)).
Let be partitioned into groups as before. A *rich mapping os ds is said to be a valid gfm if all groups are treated equally. Specifically, fix . Then is said to be a gfm if for any , .
The gfm asserts that the decision mechanism should treat all groups the same way. The doctrine of disparate impact is an example of such an assertion (although the precise measure of the degree of disparate impact as measured by the rule is different).
In the following sections we will explore whether and how these types of mechanisms actually guarantee fairness under certain axiomatic assumptions.
4 Making fair or nondiscriminatory decisions
With the basic vocabulary in place, we can now ask questions about when fairness is possible. An easy first observation is that under the wysiwyg, we can always be fair.
Theorem 4.1.
Under the wysiwyg with error parameter , an ifm will guarantee fairness for some function such that .
Proof.
Two points in the os at distance have a distance in the ts between and . Applying the mechanism yields decision elements that have a distance (in ) between and . Setting appropriately yields the claim. ∎
The requirement that we have an individually fair mechanism turns out to be important. We start with some background. Fix . Assume that we have two groups , and so each point has a label . Let be the method by which features of are “observed”. For simplicity, we assume this map is bijective and so for each there exists . We will abuse notation and denote the (group) label of as . Let be a metric on . Let be a set of points. The diameter of is . Consider an arbitrary .
Theorem 4.2.
Under the wysiwyg with parameter , for any and a rich mechanism where the ds is discrete (), is not fair.
Proof.
Fix the metric . Let be a ball of radius centered at . We will say that is monochromatic if all points in have the same image under . Let be the smallest value of such that is not monochromatic. If such an does not exist, then cannot be rich. Consider the difference , and let be some ball that is not monochromatic (such a ball must exist since is injective). Pick two points that have different images under . But they are at most apart! Any bijection from to that preserves this distance will thus ensure that there are two points and that are within distance but have a distance of in . ∎
The essence of the above argument is that a discrete decision space disallows a fair mechanism, and precludes fairness.
4.1 Nondiscriminatory decisions are possible
Demographic parity, the disparate impact fourfifths rule, and other measures quantifying the similarity in the outcomes that groups receive in the ds are prevalent and associated with many gfms that attempt to guarantee good outcomes under these measures. We will show that such gfms guarantee nondiscriminatory decisions.
Recall from Definition 3.7 that nondiscriminatory decisions guarantee a lack of group skew in the mapping between the ts and ds, i.e., the goal of nondiscrimination is to ensure that the process of decisionmaking does not vary based on group membership. Given that it’s not possible to directly measure the ts or the mapping between the ts and ds without assuming the wysiwyg axiom, these gfms attempt to ensure nondiscrimination through measurements of the ds.
Do these gfms succeed? Not at first glance. Suppose we have two groups in that are far apart, i.e is large and suppose also that they are appropriately far apart in their performance on the task. Suppose that because of structural bias, the images of these two groups in the os are even further apart while keeping the distribution of task performance within each group the same.
A gfm applied to the os will then move these groups, on the whole, to the same smaller portion of the ds so that they receive decisions indicating that they are, on the whole, equal with respect to the task. (Suppose again that the individuals within the group are mapped similarly with respect to each other and the task.)
Is this decision process nondiscriminatory? No. While the withingroup distortion will remain the same between the ts and the ds, the betweengroup distortion will be as large as the separation between and in the ts. Intuitively, we can see this as discriminatory towards the group that performs better with respect to the task in the ts, since they are, as a group, receiving worse decisions than less skilled members of the other group (i.e., there has been group skew in their group’s mapping to the decision space).
Yet these gfms are in common practice – why? First, let’s review the assumptions of this scenario. If the wysiwyg axiom is assumed, then guaranteeing fairness is easily achievable, so here we are interested in what to do in the case when the wysiwyg axiom is not assumed. Specifically, let’s assume that we are worried about the existence of structural bias – group skew in the mapping between the ts and the os. In this scenario, it may make sense to assume the wae axiom. In fact, as we will show now, when the wae axiom is assumed gfms can be shown to guarantee nondiscrimination.
Theorem 4.3 (gfms guarantee nondiscrimination).
Under the wae, a gfm with parameter guarantees nondiscrimination.
Proof.
The WAE ensures that in the ts , all groups are within distance from each other under . Similarly, a gfm ensures that in the ds , all groups are within distance from each other.
Consider now the betweengroup distance between and . Since all groups are within of each other in and within in , each term in the integral that computes is upper bounded by . By construction, the withingroup distance is lower bounded by the noise parameter . Thus, the overall structural bias score is upper bounded by . ∎
Note that this guarantee of nondiscrimination holds even under the structural bias worldview, i.e., the theorem makes no assumptions about the mapping from the ts to the os. With this theorem, we now have both an axiom and mechanism under which fairness can be achieved, and a corresponding axiomatic assumption and mechanism under which nondiscrimination can be achieved.
4.2 Conflicting worldviews necessitate different mechanisms
As we have shown in this section, under the wysiwyg worldview fairness can be guaranteed, while under a structural bias worldview nondiscrimination can be guaranteed. Are these worldviews fundamentally conflicting, or do mechanisms exist that can guarantee fairness or nondiscrimination under both worldviews?
Unfortunately, as discussed above, the wysiwyg appears to be crucial to ensuring fairness: if for example there is structural bias in the decision pipeline, no mechanism can guarantee fairness. Fairness can only be achieved under the wysiwyg worldview using an ifm, and using a gfm will be unfair within this worldview.
What about nondiscrimination? Unfortunately, a simple counterexample again shows that these mechanisms are not agnostic to worldview. While gfms were shown to achieve nondiscrimination under a structural bias worldview and the wae axiom, if structural bias is assumed, applying an ifm will cause discrimination in the ds whether the wae axiom is assumed or not. Consider again the two groups in with large , and again suppose that the images of these two groups in the os are even further apart, while keeping the distribution of task performance in each group the same. Now apply an ifm to this os. The resulting ds contains a large betweengroup distortion since the group that performed better with respect to the task in the ts will have received, on the whole, much better decisions than their original skill with respect to the other group warrants. These decisions will thus be discriminatory.
Choice in mechanism must thus be tied to an explicit choice in worldview. Under a wysiwyg worldview, only ifms achieve fairness (and gfms are unfair). Under a structural bias worldview, only gfms achieve nondiscrimination (and ifms are discriminatory).
5 Analyzing Related Work
This section serves partly as a review of the literature on fairness. But it also serves as a form of “empirical validation” of our framework, in that we use our new formalization of what fairness and nondiscrimination mean and the underlying assumptions necessitated when attempting to build fair mechanisms in order to reconsider previous work within this framework. Broadly, we find that the previous work in fairnessaware algorithms either
adopt the wysiwyg worldview and guarantee fairness while assuming the wysiwyg axiom or
adopt the structural bias worldview and guarantee nondiscrimination while assuming the wae axiom. A full survey of such work can be found in [19, 23]. Here, we will describe some interesting representative works from each of the worldviews.
5.1 WYSIWYG Worldview
One foundational work that adopts the wysiwyg worldview is Dwork et al. [8]
. The definition of fairness they introduce is similar to (and inspired) ours – they are interested in ensuring that two individuals who are similar receive similar outcomes. The difference from our definition is that they consider outcome similarity according to a distribution of outcomes for a specific individual. Dwork et al. emphasize that determining whether two individuals are similar with respect to the task is critical, and assume that such a metric is given to them. In light of the formalization of the ts and os, we add the understanding that the metric discussed by Dwork et al. is the distance in the ts. In our framework, this metric is not knowable unless wysiwyg is assumed (or the specific mapping between the ts and os is otherwise provided), so we classify this work as adopting the wysiwyg worldview.
Additionally, Dwork et al. [8] show that when the earthmover distance between distributions of the attributes conditioned on protected class status are small, then their notion of fairness implies nondiscrimination (which they measure as statistical parity, or a ratio of one between the positive outcome probability for the protected class and that for the nonprotected class). Thus, they show that under an assumption similar to the wysiwyg axiom, if an assumption similar to the wae axiom is also assumed, then gfms guarantee fairness. Note that this special case is unusual, since both axiomatic assumptions are made. A followup work by Zemel et al. [25] attempts to bridge the gap between these worldviews by adding a regularization term to attempt to enforce statistical parity as well as fairness.
Interestingly, some of the examples in Dwork et al. [8] arguing that a particular form of nondiscrimination measure (“statistical parity”) is insufficient in guaranteeing fairness make an additional subtle assumption about what spaces are involved in the decisionmaking process. Their model implicitly assumes that there could be both an observed decision space and a true decision space (a scenario common in the differential privacy literature), while our framework assumes only a single truly observable decision space (as is more common in the machine learning literature). One example issue they introduce is the “selffulfilling prophecy” in which, for example, an employer purposefully brings in underqualified minority candidates for interviews (the observed decision space) so that no discrimination is found at the interview stage, but since the candidates were underqualified, only white applicants are eventually hired (the true decision space). Under our framework, only the final decisions about who to hire make up the single decision space, and so the discrimination in the decision is detected.
Another type of fairness definition is based on the amount of change in an algorithm’s decisions when the input or training data is changed. Datta et al. [4] consider ad display choices to be discriminatory if changing the protected class status of an individual changes what ads they are shown. Fish et al. [11] consider a machine learning algorithm to be fair if it can reconstruct the original labels of training data when noise has been added to the labels for anyone from a given protected class. Both of these definitions make the implicit assumption that the remaining training data that is not the protected class status or the label is the correct data to use to make the decision. This is exactly the wysiwyg axiomatic assumption.
A recent work by Joseph et al. [12] also contributes a new fairness definition, akin to those introduced in this paper and by Dwork et al., that aims to ensure that worse candidates are never accepted over better candidates as measured with respect to the task. Their goal is to take these measurements within the ts with unknown pergroup functions mapping from the ts to the os. Joseph et al. aim to learn these pergroup functions. Thus, although their fairness goal focuses on fairness at an individual level, this work serves as a bridge to the structural bias worldview by recognizing that different groups may receive different mappings between the ts and the os.
5.2 Structural Bias Worldview
The field of fairnessaware data mining began with examinations of how to ensure nondiscrimination in the face of structural bias. These gfms often implicitly assume the wae axiom and, broadly, share the goal of ensuring that the distributions of classification decisions when conditioned on a person’s protected class status are the same for historically disadvantaged groups as they are for the majority. The underlying implicit goal in many of these papers and associated discrimination measures is nondiscrimination as we have defined it in this paper – a decisionmaking process that is made based on an individual’s attributes in the ts and that does not have group skew in its mapping to the ds.
The particular formulation of the gfm goal has taken many forms. Let be the probability of people in the minority group receiving a positive classification and be the probability of people in the majority group receiving a positive classification. Much previous work has considered the goal of achieving a low discrimination score [3, 13, 14, 20, 25], where the discrimination score is defined as . Since the goal is to bring this difference close to zero, the assumption is that groups should, as a whole, receive similar outcomes. This reflects an underlying assumption of the wae axiom so that similar group outcomes will be nondiscriminatory.
Previous work [10] has also created gfms with the goal of ensuring that decisions are nondiscriminatory under the disparate impact fourfifths ratio, a U.S. legal notion with associated measure advocated by the E.E.O.C. [22]. Work by Zafar et al. [24] has used a related definition that is easier to optimize. The disparate impact fourfifths measure looks at the ratio comparing the protected classconditioned probability of receiving a positive classification to the majority class’ probability: . Ratios that are closer to one are considered more fair, i.e., it is assumed that groups should as a whole receive similar classifications in order for the result to be nondiscriminatory. Again, this shows that the wae axiom is being assumed in this measure.
Many of these works attempt to ensure nondiscrimination by modifying the decision algorithm itself [3, 14] while others change the outcomes after the decision has been drafted. Especially interesting within the context of our definitional framework, some solutions change the input data to the machine learning algorithm before a model is trained [10, 25, 13]. These works can be seen as attempting to reconstruct the ts and make decisions directly based on that hypothesized reality under the wae assumption.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, we have shown that some notions of fairness are fundamentally incompatible with each other. These results might appear discouraging if one hoped for a universal notion of fairness, but we believe they are important. They force a shift in the focus of the discussion surrounding algorithmic fairness: without precise definitions of beliefs about the state of the world and the kinds of harms one wishes to prevent, our results show that it is not possible to make progress. They also force future discussions of algorithmic fairness to directly consider the values inherent in assumptions about how the observed space was constructed, and that such value assumptions should always be made explicit.
Although the specific theorems themselves matter, it is the definitions and the problem setup that are the fundamental contributions of this paper. This work represents a first step towards fairness researchers using a shared setting, vocabulary, and assumptions.
7 Acknowledgements
We want to thank the attendees at the Dagstuhl workshop on Data, Responsibly for their helpful comments on an early presentation of this work; special thanks to Cong Yu and Michael Hay for encouraging us to articulate the subtle differences in reasons for choosing a specific worldview and to Nicholas Diakopoulos and Solon Barocas to pointing us to the relevant work on “constructs” and inspiring our naming of that space. Thanks to Tionney Nix and Tosin Alliyu for generative early conversations about this work. Thanks also to danah boyd and the community at the Data & Society Research Institute for continuing discussions about the meanings of fairness and nondiscrimination in society.
References
 [1] R. Agarwala, V. Bafna, M. Farach, M. Paterson, and M. Thorup. On the approximability of numerical taxonomy (fitting distances by tree metrics). SIAM Journal on Computing, 28(3):1073–1085, 1998.
 [2] M. Almlund, A. L. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and T. D. Kautz. Personality psychology and economics. Technical Report w16822, NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research., 2011.
 [3] T. Calders and S. Verwer. Three naïve Bayes approaches for discriminationfree classification. Data Min Knowl Disc, 21:277–292, 2010.
 [4] A. Datta, M. C. Tschantz, and A. Datta. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings: A tale of opacity, choice, and discrimination. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 1:92 – 112, 2015.

[5]
K. Dhamdhere.
Approximating additive distortion of embeddings into line metrics.
In
Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques
, pages 96–104. Springer, 2004.  [6] A. L. Duckworth, C. Peterson, M. D. Matthews, and D. R. Kelly. Grit: Perseverance and passion for longterm goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6):1087–1101, 2007.
 [7] A. L. Duckworth and D. S. Yeager. Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4):237–251, 2015.
 [8] C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proc. of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, 2012.
 [9] M. Farach, S. Kannan, and T. Warnow. A robust model for finding optimal evolutionary trees. Algorithmica, 13(12):155–179, 1995.
 [10] M. Feldman, S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 259–268, 2015.
 [11] B. Fish, J. Kun, and A. D. Lelkes. A confidencebased approach for balancing fairness and accuracy. In Proc. of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), 2016.
 [12] M. Joseph, M. Kearns, J. Morgenstern, and A. Roth. Fairness in learning: Classic and contextual bandits. In Proc. of the Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2016.
 [13] F. Kamiran and T. Calders. Classifying without discriminating. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication, 2009.
 [14] T. Kamishima, S. Akaho, and J. Sakuma. Fairness aware learning through regularization approach. In Proc of. Intl. Conf. on Data Mining, pages 643–650, 2011.
 [15] M. Kearns. Efficient noisetolerant learning from statistical queries. Journal of the ACM, 45(6):983–1006, Nov. 1998.
 [16] F. Mémoli. Gromov–wasserstein distances and the metric approach to object matching. Foundations of computational mathematics, 11(4):417–487, 2011.
 [17] Northpointe. COMPAS  the most scientifically advanced risk and needs assessments. http://www.northpointeinc.com/riskneedsassessment.
 [18] J. E. Roemer. Equality of Opportunity. Harvard University Press, 1998.

[19]
A. Romei and S. Ruggieri.
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis.
The Knowledge Engineering Review
, pages 1–57, April 3 2013.  [20] S. Ruggieri. Using tcloseness anonymity to control for nondiscrimination. Transactions on Data Privacy, 7:99–129, 2014.
 [21] M. V. Santelices and M. Wilson. Unfair treatment? The case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardization approach to differential item functioning. Harvard Educational Review, 80(1):106–134, April 2010.
 [22] The U.S. EEOC. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures, March 2, 1979.
 [23] I. Žliobaitė. A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00148, 2015.
 [24] M. B. Zafar, I. Valera, M. G. Rogriguez, and K. P. Gummadi. Fairness constraints: A mechanism for fair classification. In ICML Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML), 2015.
 [25] R. Zemel, Y. Wu, K. Swersky, T. Pitassi, and C. Dwork. Learning fair representations. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 325–333, 2013.