Decision-centric fairness: Evaluation and optimization for resource allocation problems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data-driven decision support tools play an increasingly central role in decision-making across various domains. In this work, we focus on binary classification models for predicting positive-outcome scores and deciding on resource allocation, e.g., credit scores for granting loans or churn propensity scores for targeting customers with a retention campaign. Such models may exhibit discriminatory behavior toward specific demographic groups through their predicted scores, potentially leading to unfair resource allocation. We focus on demographic parity as a fairness metric to compare the proportions of instances that are selected based on their positive outcome scores across groups. In this work, we propose a decision-centric fairness methodology that induces fairness only within the decision-making region -- the range of relevant decision thresholds on the score that may be used to decide on resource allocation -- as an alternative to a global fairness approach that seeks to enforce parity across the entire score distribution. By restricting the induction of fairness to the decision-making region, the proposed decision-centric approach avoids imposing overly restrictive constraints on the model, which may unnecessarily degrade the quality of the predicted scores. We empirically compare our approach to a global fairness approach on multiple (semi-synthetic) datasets to identify scenarios in which focusing on fairness where it truly matters, i.e., decision-centric fairness, proves beneficial.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2025.
Builds on
25 of 60 references.
References · 25
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2013Sinkhorn Distances: Lightspeed Computation of Optimal Transportation Distancescited by 2,316
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
- 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
- 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
- 2013Fast Computation of Wasserstein Barycenterscited by 216
- 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 149
- 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
13 more
- 2018The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairnesscited by 95
- 2018Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity When Protected Class Is Unobservedcited by 94
- 2021Fairness in Credit Scoring: Assessment, Implementation and Profit Implicationscited by 65
- 2016Learning Deep Embeddings with Histogram Losscited by 52
- 2020Learning to rank for uplift modelingcited by 18
- 2022The Fairness of Credit Scoring Modelscited by 15
- 2022A new perspective on classification: optimally allocating limited resources to uncertain taskscited by 5
- 2024Achieving Group Fairness through Independence in Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 5
- 2023Retiring DeltaDP: New Distribution-Level Metrics for Demographic Paritycited by 4
- 2025Engineering the Law-Machine Learning Translation Problem: Developing Legally Aligned Modelscited by 3
- 2022LUCID: Exposing Algorithmic Bias through Inverse Designcited by 2
- 2023The Unbearable Weight of Massive Privilege: Revisiting Bias-Variance Trade-Offs in the Context of Fair Predictioncited by 1
- 2023LUCID-GAN: Conditional Generative Models to Locate Unfairnesscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.