ArticleScientific reports2026
The accuracy-fairness-efficiency Trilemma in mobile image classification: a Pareto benchmark.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
Deploying deep learning classifiers on resource-constrained mobile devices requires simultaneously satisfying three competing objectives: predictive accuracy, demographic fairness, and inference efficiency. No prior work has jointly formalized these as a constrained multi-objective optimization problem, benchmarked a comprehensive strategy set under identical conditions, or defined a Deployment-Feasible Zone (DFZ) as the feasibility-constrained Pareto subset. This paper provides all three contributions. We benchmark eleven optimization configurations on a 2,821-image dataset with 24 intersectional demographic subgroups (worst-case imbalance 35.47:1) under hard constraints ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] per attribute, [Formula: see text] MB, [Formula: see text] ms on an entry-level SoC). Three findings emerge. (1) The combination of 3D-aware augmentation and Protected Fairness Pruning (C2) is the Pareto knee point: [Formula: see text] (95 % CI: 0.906-0.962), [Formula: see text], 6.3 MB, 187 ms, confirmed in 94.2 % of bootstrap resamples. (2) Standard magnitude pruning is strictly Pareto-dominated by fairness-constrained pruning (PFP) at identical compression ratio - a result grounded in the low-magnitude minority-encoding effect. (3) The Adaptive Trilemma Weight Scheduler (ATWS) yields consistent gains of [Formula: see text] pp [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]-0.7 pp EOD over fixed-weight training, compatible with any fairness-constrained strategy.
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.