First-See-Then-Design: A Multi-Stakeholder View for Optimal Performance-Fairness Trade-Offs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14035v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:15:25 GMT
• Title: First-See-Then-Design: A Multi-Stakeholder View for Optimal Performance-Fairness Trade-Offs
• Abstract summary: We propose a multi-stakeholder framework for fair algorithmic decision-making grounded in welfare economics and distributive justice.<n>We formulate fair decision-making as a post-hoc multi-objective optimization problem.<n>We empirically demonstrate that simple policies can yield superior performance-fairness trade-offs by leveraging outcome uncertainty.
• Score: 7.450890746650866
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness in algorithmic decision-making is often defined in the predictive space, where predictive performance - used as a proxy for decision-maker (DM) utility - is traded off against prediction-based fairness notions, such as demographic parity or equality of opportunity. This perspective, however, ignores how predictions translate into decisions and ultimately into utilities and welfare for both DM and decision subjects (DS), as well as their allocation across social-salient groups. In this paper, we propose a multi-stakeholder framework for fair algorithmic decision-making grounded in welfare economics and distributive justice, explicitly modeling the utilities of both the DM and DS, and defining fairness via a social planner's utility that captures inequalities in DS utilities across groups under different justice-based fairness notions (e.g., Egalitarian, Rawlsian). We formulate fair decision-making as a post-hoc multi-objective optimization problem, characterizing the achievable performance-fairness trade-offs in the two-dimensional utility space of DM utility and the social planner's utility, under different decision policy classes (deterministic vs. stochastic, shared vs. group-specific). Using the proposed framework, we then identify conditions (in terms of the stakeholders' utilities) under which stochastic policies are more optimal than deterministic ones, and empirically demonstrate that simple stochastic policies can yield superior performance-fairness trade-offs by leveraging outcome uncertainty. Overall, we advocate a shift from prediction-centric fairness to a transparent, justice-based, multi-stakeholder approach that supports the collaborative design of decision-making policies.

Related papers

• Fairness vs Performance: Characterizing the Pareto Frontier of Algorithmic Decision Systems [0.0]
  Design of fair algorithmic decision systems requires balancing model performance with fairness toward affected individuals.<n>We investigate fairness in binary prediction-based decision problems by conceptualizing decision making as a multi-objective optimization problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T14:04:27Z)
• A General Incentives-Based Framework for Fairness in Multi-agent Resource Allocation [4.930376365020355]
  We introduce the General Incentives-based Framework for Fairness (GIFF)<n>GIFF is a novel approach for fair multi-agent resource allocation that infers fair decision-making from standard value functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T17:37:51Z)
• 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)
• Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Time [52.230936493691985]
  We propose SITAlign, an inference framework that addresses the multifaceted nature of alignment by maximizing a primary objective while satisfying threshold-based constraints on secondary criteria.<n>We provide theoretical insights by deriving sub-optimality bounds of our satisficing based inference alignment approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:56:05Z)
• Testing Fairness with Utility Tradeoffs: A Wasserstein Projection Approach [6.378410364292642]
  We propose a statistical hypothesis testing framework that jointly evaluates approximate fairness and utility.<n>Our framework builds on the strong demographic parity criterion and incorporates a utility measure motivated by the potential outcomes framework.<n>We show that the test is computationally tractable, interpretable, broadly applicable across machine learning models, and extendable to more general settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T20:29:06Z)
• Decision-centric fairness: Evaluation and optimization for resource allocation problems [1.5623752145311105]
  We propose a decision-centric fairness methodology that induces fairness only within the decision-making region.<n>We empirically compare our approach to a global fairness approach on multiple (semi-synthetic) datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T11:12:36Z)
• Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective [58.06306331390586]
  We analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time.<n>We show that enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups.<n>We introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T11:19:52Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiency [0.0]
  This paper focuses on the fairness concepts of PPV parity, false omission rate (FOR) parity, and sufficiency. We show that group-specific threshold rules are optimal for PPV parity and FOR parity. We also provide a solution for the optimal decision rules satisfying the fairness constraint sufficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-05T18:47:34Z)
• Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making [21.152377319502705]
  We present an alternative framework for designing equitable algorithms. In our approach, one first elicits stakeholder preferences over the space of possible decisions. We then optimize over the space of decision policies, making trade-offs in a way that maximizes the elicited utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-18T00:30:43Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)

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.