mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving Screening Processes via Calibrated Subset Selection

arXiv 2202.01147 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2022cs.LG cs.CY stat.MLcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many selection processes such as finding patients qualifying for a medical trial or retrieval pipelines in search engines consist of multiple stages, where an initial screening stage focuses the resources on shortlisting the most promising candidates. In this paper, we investigate what guarantees a screening classifier can provide, independently of whether it is constructed manually or trained. We find that current solutions do not enjoy distribution-free theoretical guarantees -- we show that, in general, even for a perfectly calibrated classifier, there always exist specific pools of candidates for which its shortlist is suboptimal. Then, we develop a distribution-free screening algorithm -- called Calibrated Subset Selection (CSS) -- that, given any classifier and some amount of calibration data, finds near-optimal shortlists of candidates that contain a desired number of qualified candidates in expectation. Moreover, we show that a variant of CSS that calibrates a given classifier multiple times across specific groups can create shortlists with provable diversity guarantees. Experiments on US Census survey data validate our theoretical results and show that the shortlists provided by our algorithm are superior to those provided by several competitive baselines.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2022.

Builds on

25 of 56 references.

References · 25

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  3. 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 777
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  5. 2019Conformalized Quantile Regressioncited by 620
  6. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  7. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
  8. 2018Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regressioncited by 417
  9. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  10. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  11. 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 278
  12. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
13 more
  1. 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 137
  2. 2021Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shiftcited by 99
  3. 2020Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibrationcited by 79
  4. 2021Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class Calibrationcited by 79
  5. 2020Moment Multicalibration for Uncertainty Estimationcited by 63
  6. 2020Individual Calibration with Randomized Forecastingcited by 50
  7. 2020Decisions, Counterfactual Explanations and Strategic Behaviorcited by 44
  8. 2021Distribution-free calibration guarantees for histogram binning without sample splittingcited by 44
  9. 2019What does it mean to solve the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systemscited by 38
  10. 2021Set-valued classification -- overview via a unified frameworkcited by 27
  11. 2018Monotonic classification: an overview on algorithms, performance measures and data setscited by 18
  12. 2019Fair Allocation through Selective Information Acquisitioncited by 16
  13. 2021On component interactions in two-stage recommender systemscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 6; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

16 papers.

Sort: