Alternative Fairness and Accuracy Optimization in Criminal Justice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04505v3
• Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 01:18:15 GMT
• Title: Alternative Fairness and Accuracy Optimization in Criminal Justice
• Authors: Shaolong Wu, James Blume, Geshi Yeung,
• Abstract summary: We develop a simple modification to standard group fairness.<n>We minimize a weighted error loss while keeping differences in false negative rates within a small tolerance.<n>This makes solutions easier to find, can raise predictive accuracy, and surfaces the ethical choice of error costs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic fairness has grown rapidly as a research area, yet key concepts remain unsettled, especially in criminal justice. We review group, individual, and process fairness and map the conditions under which they conflict. We then develop a simple modification to standard group fairness. Rather than exact parity across protected groups, we minimize a weighted error loss while keeping differences in false negative rates within a small tolerance. This makes solutions easier to find, can raise predictive accuracy, and surfaces the ethical choice of error costs. We situate this proposal within three classes of critique: biased and incomplete data, latent affirmative action, and the explosion of subgroup constraints. Finally, we offer a practical framework for deployment in public decision systems built on three pillars: need-based decisions, Transparency and accountability, and narrowly tailored definitions and solutions. Together, these elements link technical design to legitimacy and provide actionable guidance for agencies that use risk assessment and related tools.

Related papers

• Intersectional Fairness via Mixed-Integer Optimization [2.664154603948153]
  We argue that true fairness requires addressing bias at the intersections of protected groups.<n>We propose a unified framework that leverages Mixed-Integer Optimization (MIO) to train intersectionally fair and intrinsically interpretable classifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T13:29:25Z)
• Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making [41.53741129864172]
  Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods.<n>We propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored.<n>We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T11:42:14Z)
• Fairness for the People, by the People: Minority Collective Action [50.29077265863936]
  Machine learning models often preserve biases present in training data, leading to unfair treatment of certain minority groups.<n>We propose a coordinated minority group strategically relabels its own data to enhance fairness, without altering the firm's training process.<n>Our findings show that a subgroup of the minority can substantially reduce unfairness with a small impact on the overall prediction error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T09:09:39Z)
• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Criticality and Safety Margins for Reinforcement Learning [53.10194953873209]
  We seek to define a criticality framework with both a quantifiable ground truth and a clear significance to users.<n>We introduce true criticality as the expected drop in reward when an agent deviates from its policy for n consecutive random actions.<n>We also introduce the concept of proxy criticality, a low-overhead metric that has a statistically monotonic relationship to true criticality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T21:00:45Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Federated Fairness without Access to Sensitive Groups [12.888927461513472]
  Current approaches to group fairness in federated learning assume the existence of predefined and labeled sensitive groups during training. We propose a new approach to guarantee group fairness that does not rely on any predefined definition of sensitive groups or additional labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T19:24:59Z)
• Fair Without Leveling Down: A New Intersectional Fairness Definition [1.0958014189747356]
  We propose a new definition called the $alpha$-Intersectional Fairness, which combines the absolute and the relative performance across sensitive groups. We benchmark multiple popular in-processing fair machine learning approaches using our new fairness definition and show that they do not achieve any improvement over a simple baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T16:15:12Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• Robust Optimization for Fairness with Noisy Protected Groups [85.13255550021495]
  We study the consequences of naively relying on noisy protected group labels. We introduce two new approaches using robust optimization. We show that the robust approaches achieve better true group fairness guarantees than the naive approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-21T14:58:37Z)

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

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