Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Algorithm Design: A Fairness-Accuracy Frontier

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2112.09975 v5 pith:PQLQFXJX submitted 2021-12-18 econ.TH

classification econ.TH
keywords algorithminputsaccuracydesignerfairnessfrontierinputacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Algorithm designers increasingly optimize not only for accuracy, but also for the fairness of the algorithm across pre-defined groups. We study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy for any given set of inputs to the algorithm. We propose and characterize a fairness-accuracy frontier, which consists of the optimal points across a broad range of preferences over fairness and accuracy. Our results identify a simple property of the inputs, group-balance, which qualitatively determines the shape of the frontier. We further study an information-design problem where the designer flexibly regulates the inputs (e.g., by coarsening an input or banning its use) but the algorithm is chosen by another agent. Whether it is optimal to ban an input generally depends on the designer's preferences. But when inputs are group-balanced, then excluding group identity is strictly suboptimal for all designers, and when the designer has access to group identity, then it is strictly suboptimal to exclude any informative input.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Your Model Is Unfair, Are You Even Aware? Inverse Relationship Between Comprehension and Trust in Explainability Visualizations of Biased ML Models

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    More comprehensible explainability visualizations increase perceived model bias and decrease trust, with bias perception mediating the negative comprehension-trust relationship.

  2. Maximin Relative Improvement: Fair Learning as a Bargaining Problem

    stat.ML 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Maximizing the worst group's relative risk improvement from a baseline equals the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution and has a finite-sample O(1/sqrt(n)) guarantee.

Pith tools