Selecting for Less Discriminatory Algorithms: A Relational Search Framework for Navigating Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Practice
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As machine learning models are increasingly embedded into society through high-stakes decision-making, selecting the right algorithm for a given task, audience, and sector presents a critical challenge, particularly in the context of fairness. Traditional assessments of model fairness have often framed fairness as an objective mathematical property, treating model selection as an optimization problem under idealized informational conditions. This overlooks model multiplicity as a consideration--that multiple models can deliver similar performance while exhibiting different fairness characteristics. Legal scholars have engaged this challenge through the concept of Less Discriminatory Algorithms (LDAs), which frames model selection as a civil rights obligation. In real-world deployment, this normative challenge is bounded by constraints on fairness experimentation, e.g., regulatory standards, institutional priorities, and resource capacity. Against these considerations, the paper revisits Lee and Floridi (2021)'s relational fairness approach using updated 2021 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, and proposes an expansion of the scope of the LDA search process. We argue that extending the LDA search horizontally, considering fairness across model families themselves, provides a lightweight complement, or alternative, to within-model hyperparameter optimization, when operationalizing fairness in non-experimental, resource constrained settings. Fairness metrics alone offer useful, but insufficient signals to accurately evaluate candidate LDAs. Rather, by using a horizontal LDA search approach with the relational trade-off framework, we demonstrate a responsible minimum viable LDA search on real-world lending outcomes. Organizations can modify this approach to systematically compare, evaluate, and select LDAs that optimize fairness and accuracy in a sector-based contextualized manner.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.
Builds on
16 of 53 references.
References · 16
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
- 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 166
- 2020Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 143
- 2020Fairwashing Explanations with Off-Manifold Detergentcited by 72
- 2021Post-processing for Individual Fairnesscited by 61
- 2023A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challengescited by 41
- 2025Be Intentional About Fairness!: Fairness, Size, and Multiplicity in the Rashomon Setcited by 10
- 2022Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicitycited by 8
4 more
- 2024What Constitutes a Less Discriminatory Algorithm?cited by 8
- 2023Toward Operationalizing Pipeline-aware ML Fairness: A Research Agenda for Developing Practical Guidelines and Toolscited by 7
- 2024The Legal Duty to Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithmscited by 5
- 2025Overcoming Fairness Trade-offs via Pre-processing: A Causal Perspectivecited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025The Statistical Fairness-Accuracy Frontiercited by 3
- 2025The Statistical Fairness-Accuracy Frontier25 Aug 2025