Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2209.05602 v1 pith:5CDDG6JN submitted 2022-09-12 cs.CY cs.GTcs.LG

It's Not Fairness, and It's Not Fair: The Failure of Distributional Equality and the Promise of Relational Equality in Complete-Information Hiring Games

classification cs.CY cs.GTcs.LG
keywords equalityexistingfairnessunequalcomputationaldistributionalrelationalcomplete-information
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing efforts to formulate computational definitions of fairness have largely focused on distributional notions of equality, where equality is defined by the resources or decisions given to individuals in the system. Yet existing discrimination and injustice is often the result of unequal social relations, rather than an unequal distribution of resources. Here, we show how optimizing for existing computational and economic definitions of fairness and equality fail to prevent unequal social relations. To do this, we provide an example of a self-confirming equilibrium in a simple hiring market that is relationally unequal but satisfies existing distributional notions of fairness. In doing so, we introduce a notion of blatant relational unfairness for complete-information games, and discuss how this definition helps initiate a new approach to incorporating relational equality into computational systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.