Detecting Statistically Significant Fairness Violations in Recidivism Forecasting Algorithms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11575v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 17:15:23 GMT
• Title: Detecting Statistically Significant Fairness Violations in Recidivism Forecasting Algorithms
• Authors: Animesh Joshi,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces statistical tests that can be used to identify statistically significant violations of fairness metrics.<n>We demonstrate this approach by testing recidivism forecasting algorithms trained on data from the National Institute of Justice.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning algorithms are increasingly deployed in critical domains such as finance, healthcare, and criminal justice [1]. The increasing popularity of algorithmic decision-making has stimulated interest in algorithmic fairness within the academic community. Researchers have introduced various fairness definitions that quantify disparities between privileged and protected groups, use causal inference to determine the impact of race on model predictions, and that test calibration of probability predictions from the model. Existing literature does not provide a way in which to assess whether observed disparities between groups are statistically significant or merely due to chance. This paper introduces a rigorous framework for testing the statistical significance of fairness violations by leveraging k-fold cross-validation [2] to generate sampling distributions of fairness metrics. This paper introduces statistical tests that can be used to identify statistically significant violations of fairness metrics based on disparities between predicted and actual outcomes, model calibration, and causal inference techniques [1]. We demonstrate this approach by testing recidivism forecasting algorithms trained on data from the National Institute of Justice. Our findings reveal that machine learning algorithms used for recidivism forecasting exhibit statistically significant bias against Black individuals under several fairness definitions, while also exhibiting no bias or bias against White individuals under other definitions. The results from this paper underscore the importance of rigorous and robust statistical testing while evaluating algorithmic decision-making systems.

Related papers

• Empirical Likelihood-Based Fairness Auditing: Distribution-Free Certification and Flagging [18.71249153088185]
  Machine learning models in high-stakes applications, such as recidivism prediction and automated personnel selection, often exhibit systematic performance disparities.<n>We propose a novel empirical likelihood-based (EL) framework that constructs robust statistical measures for model performance disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T05:36:19Z)
• Falsifying Predictive Algorithm [2.4006298200630343]
  Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended.<n>We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T19:57:43Z)
• Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching [0.49157446832511503]
  We investigate whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of fairness metrics.<n>Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data.<n>We propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T19:28:30Z)
• Targeted Learning for Data Fairness [52.59573714151884]
  We expand fairness inference by evaluating fairness in the data generating process itself.<n>We derive estimators demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information.<n>To validate our approach, we perform several simulations and apply our estimators to real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:51:28Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks [5.076419064097733]
  This work presents error parity as a regression fairness notion and introduces a testing methodology to assess group fairness. It is followed by a suitable permutation test to compare groups on several statistics to explore disparities and identify impacted groups. Overall, the proposed regression fairness testing methodology fills a gap in the fair machine learning literature and may serve as a part of larger accountability assessments and algorithm audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T17:47:20Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• 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)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• A Statistical Test for Probabilistic Fairness [11.95891442664266]
  We propose a statistical hypothesis test for detecting unfair classifiers. We show both theoretically as well as empirically that the proposed test is correct. In addition, the proposed framework offers interpretability by identifying the most favorable perturbation of the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-09T00:20:02Z)
• All of the Fairness for Edge Prediction with Optimal Transport [11.51786288978429]
  We study the problem of fairness for the task of edge prediction in graphs. We propose an embedding-agnostic repairing procedure for the adjacency matrix of an arbitrary graph with a trade-off between the group and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T15:33:13Z)
• Unfairness Discovery and Prevention For Few-Shot Regression [9.95899391250129]
  We study fairness in supervised few-shot meta-learning models sensitive to discrimination (or bias) in historical data. A machine learning model trained based on biased data tends to make unfair predictions for users from minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T22:34:06Z)

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.