The paper "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art" by Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth explores the concept of fairness in criminal justice risk assessments, highlighting the lack of conceptual precision in discussions about fairness. The authors draw on criminology, computer science, and statistics to provide an integrated examination of fairness and accuracy in these assessments. They present six types of fairness and demonstrate that some of these types are incompatible with each other and with accuracy. The paper concludes that it is impossible to maximize both accuracy and fairness simultaneously, and that different base rates across legally protected groups pose significant challenges. The authors emphasize the need to consider challenging trade-offs between different kinds of fairness and accuracy in practice.The paper "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art" by Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth explores the concept of fairness in criminal justice risk assessments, highlighting the lack of conceptual precision in discussions about fairness. The authors draw on criminology, computer science, and statistics to provide an integrated examination of fairness and accuracy in these assessments. They present six types of fairness and demonstrate that some of these types are incompatible with each other and with accuracy. The paper concludes that it is impossible to maximize both accuracy and fairness simultaneously, and that different base rates across legally protected groups pose significant challenges. The authors emphasize the need to consider challenging trade-offs between different kinds of fairness and accuracy in practice.