# Alternative Fairness and Accuracy Optimization in Criminal Justice

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04505 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04505/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Certifying and removing disparate impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.3756/) (2014)
- [Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.05144/) (2017)
- [Algorithmic Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09784/) (2020)
- [Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.04783/) (2019)
- [How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.07722/) (2022)
- ["There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05758/) (2022)
- [Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.14285/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Algorithmic fairness has grown rapidly as a research area, yet key concepts remain unsettled, especially in criminal justice. We review group, individual, and process fairness and map the conditions under which they conflict. We then develop a simple modification to standard group fairness. Rather than exact parity across protected groups, we minimize a weighted error loss while keeping differences in false negative rates within a small tolerance. This makes solutions easier to find, can raise predictive accuracy, and surfaces the ethical choice of error costs. We situate this proposal within three classes of critique: biased and incomplete data, latent affirmative action, and the explosion of subgroup constraints. Finally, we offer a practical framework for deployment in public decision systems built on three pillars: need-based decisions, Transparency and accountability, and narrowly tailored definitions and solutions. Together, these elements link technical design to legitimacy and provide actionable guidance for agencies that use risk assessment and related tools.