The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01299v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2026 15:09:27 GMT
• Title: The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice
• Abstract summary: We show that racial bias is not only present in the COMPAS dataset but is also amplified by the models trained on it.<n>Applying fairness constraints does not necessarily cost predictive accuracy in criminal justice.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A dominant critique of algorithmic fairness holds that increasing fairness reduces predictive accuracy, imposing a cost on society. We challenge that assumption by empirically analyzing the COMPAS dataset. We make two contributions. First, using causal inference methods, we show that racial bias is not only present in the COMPAS dataset but is also amplified by the models trained on it. Widely used models do more than replicate existing bias; they exacerbate it. This undercuts both the assumption that algorithmic decision-making offers a neutral improvement over human judgment and the weaker claim that it merely mirrors preexisting human bias. Second, we reframe the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. Applying fairness constraints does not necessarily cost predictive accuracy in criminal justice. Prediction systems operationalize concepts such as risk through implicit and often flawed normative choices about what to predict and how. The tradeoff claim assumes that the unconstrained model's prediction is an optimal baseline. Fairness constraints can instead correct distortions introduced by biased outcome variables: rearrest data, in this case, captures and magnifies systemic racial disparities. Under some interventions, therefore, fairness carries none of the cost presumed in policy debates. These dynamics extend beyond criminal justice to lending, hiring, and housing, where biased outcome variables reinforce inequality independently of proxy selection. We draw out what this implies for how law and policy should approach fairness adjustments in criminal law.

Related papers

• Learning Counterfactually Fair Models via Improved Generation with Neural Causal Models [3.0610592694343057]
  One of the main concerns while deploying machine learning models in real-world applications is fairness.<n>Existing methodologies for enforcing counterfactual fairness seem to have two limitations.<n>We propose employing Neural Causal Models for generating the counterfactual samples.<n>We also propose a new MMD-based regularizer term that explicitly enforces the counterfactual fairness conditions into the base model while training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T11:59:03Z)
• Where Fact Ends and Fairness Begins: Redefining AI Bias Evaluation through Cognitive Biases [77.3489598315447]
  We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation.<n>We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Equal Opportunity of Coverage in Fair Regression [50.76908018786335]
  We study fair machine learning (ML) under predictive uncertainty to enable reliable and trustworthy decision-making. We propose Equal Opportunity of Coverage (EOC) that aims to achieve two properties: (1) coverage rates for different groups with similar outcomes are close, and (2) the coverage rate for the entire population remains at a predetermined level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T21:19:59Z)
• Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness [15.83823345486604]
  We motivatefactual fairness by showing that there is not a fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy. Counterfactual fairness can sometimes be tested by measuring relatively simple group fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T16:07:57Z)
• Consistent End-to-End Estimation for Counterfactual Fairness [56.9060492313073]
  We propose a novel counterfactual fairness predictor for making predictions under counterfactual fairness.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees that our method is effective in ensuring the notion of counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:58:39Z)
• 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)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• Debiasing classifiers: is reality at variance with expectation? [9.730485257882433]
  We show that debiasers often fail in practice to generalize out-of-sample data, and can in fact make fairness worse rather than better. Considering fairness--performance trade-offs justifies the counterintuitive notion that partial debiasing can actually yield better results in practice on out-of-sample data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T17:00:54Z)
• Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy? [11.435833538081557]
  Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may produce a classifier that not only is biased but also has suboptimal accuracy on the true data distribution. We examine the ability of fairness-constrained ERM to correct this problem. We also consider other recovery methods including reweighting the training data, Equalized Odds, and Demographic Parity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-02T22:00:14Z)

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.