Fairness vs Performance: Characterizing the Pareto Frontier of Algorithmic Decision Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10604v1
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 14:04:27 GMT
• Title: Fairness vs Performance: Characterizing the Pareto Frontier of Algorithmic Decision Systems
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Designing fair algorithmic decision systems requires balancing model performance with fairness toward affected individuals: More fairness might require sacrificing some performance and vice versa, yet the space of possible trade-offs is still poorly understood. We investigate fairness in binary prediction-based decision problems by conceptualizing decision making as a multi-objective optimization problem that simultaneously considers decision-maker utility and group fairness. We investigate the set of Pareto-optimal decision rules for arbitrary utility functions for decision maker, arbitrary population distributions, and a wide range of group fairness metrics. We find that the Pareto frontier consists of deterministic, group-specific threshold rules applied to individuals' success probability. This complements existing optimality theorems from literature which, for specific fairness constraints, posit lower-bound threshold rules only. However we also show that, depending on the used fairness metric, the Pareto frontier may include upper-bound threshold rules, thus preferring individuals with lower success probabilities. We show that the location of the Pareto frontier depends only on population characteristics, utility functions and fairness score, but not on the technical design of the algorithm - our findings hold for pre-, in-, and post-processing approaches alike. Our results generalize existing optimality theorems for fairness-constrained classification and extend them to generalized fairness metrics and fairness principles, and to partial fairness regimes. This paper connects formal fairness research with legal and ethical requirements to search for less discriminatory alternatives, offering a principled foundation for evaluating and comparing algorithmic decision systems.

Related papers

• First-See-Then-Design: A Multi-Stakeholder View for Optimal Performance-Fairness Trade-Offs [7.450890746650866]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T16:15:25Z)
• 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)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Likelihood Ratio Confidence Sets for Sequential Decision Making [51.66638486226482]
  We revisit the likelihood-based inference principle and propose to use likelihood ratios to construct valid confidence sequences. Our method is especially suitable for problems with well-specified likelihoods. We show how to provably choose the best sequence of estimators and shed light on connections to online convex optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T00:10:21Z)
• 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)
• Pareto Efficient Fairness in Supervised Learning: From Extraction to Tracing [26.704236797908177]
  algorithmic decision-making systems are becoming more pervasive. Due to the inherent trade-off between measures and accuracy, it is desirable to ensure the trade-off between overall loss and other criteria. We propose a definition-agnostic, meaning that any well-defined notion of can be reduced to the PEF notion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-04T15:49:35Z)
• 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.