ArticleNeural computing & applications2025
A fairness scale for real-time recidivism forecasts using a national database of convicted offenders.
Article in Neural computing & applications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This investigation explores whether machine learning can predict recidivism while addressing societal biases. To investigate this, we obtained conviction data from the UK's Police National Computer (PNC) on 346,685 records between January 1, 2000, and February 3, 2006 (His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Use of the Police National Computer: An inspection of the ACRO Criminal Records Office. His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Birmingham, https://assets-hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/uploads/police-national-computer-use-acro-criminal-records-office.pdf, 2017). We generate twelve machine learning models-six to forecast general recidivism, and six to forecast violent recidivism-over a 3-year period, evaluated via fivefold cross-validation. Our best-performing models outperform the existing state-of-the-arts, receiving an area under curve (AUC) score of 0.8660 and 0.8375 for general and violent recidivism, respectively. Next, we construct a fairness scale that communicates the semantic and technical trade-offs associated with debiasing a criminal justice forecasting model. We use this scale to debias our best-performing models. Results indicate both models can achieve all five fairness definitions because the metrics measuring these definitions-the statistical range of recall, precision, positive rate, and error balance between demographics-indicate that these scores are within a one percentage point difference of each other. Deployment recommendations and implications are discussed. These include recommended safeguards against false positives, an explication of how these models addressed societal biases, and a case study illustrating how these models can improve existing criminal justice practices. That is, these models may help police identify fewer people in a way less impacted by structural bias while still reducing crime. A randomized control trial is proposed to test this illustrated case study, and further directions explored. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00521-025-11478-x.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.