mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Operationalizing Fairness: Post-Hoc Threshold Optimization Under Hard Resource Limits

arXiv 2602.22560 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The deployment of machine learning in high-stakes domains requires a balance between predictive safety and algorithmic fairness. However, existing fairness interventions often as- sume unconstrained resources and employ group-specific decision thresholds that violate anti- discrimination regulations. We introduce a post-hoc, model-agnostic threshold optimization framework that jointly balances safety, efficiency, and equity under strict and hard capacity constraints. To ensure legal compliance, the framework enforces a single, global decision thresh- old. We formulated a parameterized ethical loss function coupled with a bounded decision rule that mathematically prevents intervention volumes from exceeding the available resources. An- alytically, we prove the key properties of the deployed threshold, including local monotonicity with respect to ethical weighting and the formal identification of critical capacity regimes. We conducted extensive experimental evaluations on diverse high-stakes datasets. The principal re- sults demonstrate that capacity constraints dominate ethical priorities; the strict resource limit determines the final deployed threshold in over 80% of the tested configurations. Furthermore, under a restrictive 25% capacity limit, the proposed framework successfully maintains high risk identification (recall ranging from 0.409 to 0.702), whereas standard unconstrained fairness heuristics collapse to a near-zero utility. We conclude that theoretical fairness objectives must be explicitly subordinated to operational capacity limits to remain in deployment. By decou- pling predictive scoring from policy evaluation and strictly bounding intervention rates, this framework provides a practical and legally compliant mechanism for stakeholders to navigate unavoidable ethical trade-offs in resource-constrained environments.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2026.

Builds on

20 of 44 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  3. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  5. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 587
  6. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  7. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
  8. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  9. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
  10. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  11. 2018Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 181
  12. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
8 more
  1. 2018The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairnesscited by 95
  2. 2021Post-processing for Individual Fairnesscited by 61
  3. 2019Pairwise Fairness for Ranking and Regressioncited by 58
  4. 2022Fair and Optimal Classification via Post-Processingcited by 51
  5. 2019On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitionscited by 19
  6. 2024AdapFair: Ensuring Adaptive Fairness for Machine Learning Operationscited by 1
  7. 2025A Multi-Objective Evaluation Framework for Analyzing Utility-Fairness Trade-Offs in Machine Learning Systemscited by 1
  8. 2025An Analysis of the New EU AI Act and A Proposed Standardization Framework for Machine Learning Fairnesscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.