首页 > AI前沿 > When Post-Processing Fairness Constraints Help and When They Harm: Evidence from Eight Cross-Domain Evaluations

When Post-Processing Fairness Constraints Help and When They Harm: Evidence from Eight Cross-Domain Evaluations

arXiv机器学习 2026-09-23 02:46 5 阅读 查看原文

Fairness audits in production ML typically occur once, at deployment, on a single domain.

Both fail in practice: fairness can shift after retraining or a changing user base, and interventions validated on one dataset are rarely tested across the heterogeneous domains an organization deploys.

We present FAPE (Fairness Auditing for Production Environments)

a four-stage framework evaluating a single post-processing intervention, Fairlearn's ThresholdOptimizer, across eight domain evaluations:

  • criminal justice
  • income prediction
  • legal admissions
  • credit lending
  • agricultural lending
  • a multi-domain benchmark corpus
  • healthcare
  • education

Each is scored on demographic parity and equalized odds difference, plus disparate impact ratio and accuracy cost where computable.

Intervention effectiveness tracks baseline disparity magnitude:

across model-domain pairs the constraint improved disparity in 9 of 14 high-disparity cases and worsened it in 3 of 4 near-fair ones.

Each of the five high-disparity exceptions reverses under one of two measurement checks, a minimum group size or thresholds fit on held-out data.

A CUSUM monitor started at deployment

tested on a simulated shift, separates constrained models that never met a 0.1 parity convention from those that met it and later regressed.

A single deployment-time audit is therefore an unreliable guide, which argues for baseline-disparity screening and continuous monitoring.