FairPOT: Balancing AUC Performance and Fairness with Proportional Optimal Transport

Benjamin A. Goldstein; Matthew M. Engelhard; Michael J. Pencina; Michael M. Zavlanos; Nicoleta J. Economou-Zavlanos; Pengxi Liu; Yi Shen

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 57 references

FairPOT: Balancing AUC Performance and Fairness with Proportional Optimal Transport

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read FairPOT is a post-processing method that selectively applies optimal transport to the top-lambda quantile of a disadvantaged group's risk scores, tunably reducing AUC-based fairness gaps while preserving overall AUC, and extends to partial

desk verdict FairPOT is a plausible and genuinely selective post-processing idea for AUC fairness, but the abstract alone cannot support the blanket outperformance claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03940 v2 pith:P6NX4XP5 submitted 2025-08-05 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CYstat.ML

Pengxi Liu , Yi Shen , Matthew M. Engelhard , Benjamin A. Goldstein , Michael J. Pencina , Nicoleta J. Economou-Zavlanos , Michael M. Zavlanos This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CYstat.ML

keywords algorithmicfairnessAUCoptimaltransportpost-processingpartialriskscoresmodel-agnostichealthcare

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces FairPOT, a post-processing method that aims to reduce AUC-based fairness disparities between groups without sacrificing much predictive performance. Instead of aligning entire score distributions, FairPOT transports only the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores toward the advantaged distribution, giving a tunable knob between fairness and utility. It also adapts this to partial AUC, focusing the intervention on the highest-risk region. The authors argue this beats existing post-processing techniques on synthetic, public, and clinical datasets, often improving fairness with only slight AUC loss or even small gains.

What carries the argument

Proportional optimal transport: an optimal-transport map applied to the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's risk-score distribution, aligning this segment to the corresponding segment of the advantaged distribution. The proportion lambda controls the strength of the fairness intervention and is the dial that yields the trade-off between AUC fairness and overall AUC.

What would settle it

Take a synthetic dataset where the AUC gap between groups is generated entirely by a difference in the bottom decile of scores (low-risk individuals), while the top scores are identical. Run FairPOT with lambda from 0.1 to 0.9: if the AUC fairness gap shrinks materially only at lambda near 1, the assumption that the gap lives in the top quantile is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FairPOT claims that fairness in AUC can be improved by a targeted, proportional optimal-transport alignment: rather than transforming all scores of a disadvantaged group, one transforms only the top-lambda quantile, where the AUC gap is most consequential. Varying lambda trades between reducing global or partial AUC disparities and preserving overall AUC performance. The method is model-agnostic and computationally efficient, and it extends naturally to partial AUC so that interventions concentrate on the highest-risk individuals.

Load-bearing premise

The fairness gap in AUC is concentrated in the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores; if the gap comes from lower-score regions or from interactions across the distribution, the selective transport will not close it unless lambda is set near 1, which defeats the goal of preserving utility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Provides a tunable fairness-utility trade-off with a single parameter lambda.
Extends fairness post-processing to partial AUC, targeting high-risk thresholds.
Model-agnostic: can be applied to any score-based classifier.
Computational efficiency makes it feasible for real-time or deployed systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The top-lambda emphasis implies a policy stance: fairness interventions should be concentrated where high-risk decisions are made, which aligns with regulatory attention on higher-risk thresholds.
FairPOT could be combined with calibration methods; after transport, the calibration of the disadvantaged group's scores may shift and would need re-checking, a testable extension.
The paper leaves the selection of lambda to the practitioner; a cross-validated choice combining AUC gap and overall AUC would be a natural validation protocol, though not explicitly stated.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I only have the abstract, so this is a partial read. The core idea is clear: post-process risk scores by transporting only the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores, with lambda as a tunable knob to trade AUC fairness against overall AUC. The selective transport mechanism, plus a partial-AUC extension, looks genuinely new relative to standard OT-based fairness methods. The paper is honest that strict fairness degrades AUC and offers a practical control. Model-agnostic and computationally light, so it has real deployment appeal. Credit where due: this is a sensible carve-out of the OT post-processing space, and the abstract is well written.

The soft spot is the localization assumption. The method assumes AUC fairness gaps live in the highest scores of the disadvantaged group. AUC is rank-based over the full score distribution, and there is no a priori reason the gap must be concentrated at the top. If the gap comes from middle or lower score shifts, selective transport does little until lambda approaches 1, at which point the method degenerates to full proportional OT and loses its claimed tunability. The abstract reports no ablation, no sensitivity sweep over lambda, and no distributional diagnostics to show the top-lambda localization holds on their datasets. Given the blanket claim that FairPOT consistently outperforms all baselines, that is a load-bearing missing piece. It may be in the full text, but as submitted evidence I cannot verify it.

Also, 'consistently outperforms' appears without effect sizes, error bars, or dataset counts. A serious referee would need to see whether gains are meaningful or marginal and how lambda was selected per dataset. Lambda as a user-controlled knob does not look circular, but the selection procedure needs to be described.

Net: this could be a useful contribution to fairness-aware ML, and the idea is worth engaging with. The main empirical claim is not established from the abstract alone. I would send it to peer review, instructing the referee to check sensitivity to lambda, the distribution of fairness gaps in their data, and comparisons that include standard OT baselines and simpler top-k thresholding. I might bring it to a reading group if the full text becomes available, but not on the abstract alone.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FairPOT, a model-agnostic post-processing framework for fairness in AUC-based risk scores. FairPOT uses optimal transport to align risk-score distributions across groups, but selectively transforms only the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores, allowing a tunable trade-off between reducing AUC disparities and maintaining overall AUC performance. The method is extended to the partial AUC setting, concentrating interventions on the highest-risk regions. The abstract claims consistent outperformance over existing post-processing techniques on synthetic, public, and clinical datasets.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, FairPOT would be a practically useful contribution to the algorithmic fairness post-processing literature: it targets AUC-based fairness metrics, is model-agnostic, and claims computational efficiency. The selective-transport idea is novel and the extension to partial AUC is timely. However, the available manuscript body is missing, so the derivation, experiments, and supporting analysis cannot be verified. The strong empirical claim of consistent outperformance and the core localization assumption both require careful validation.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] The central mechanism rests on the assumption that the AUC fairness gap is localized in the top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores. AUC is a rank-based statistic over the entire score distribution; disparities can arise from middle/lower regions or non-monotone relationships. The abstract provides no theoretical justification, diagnostic, or ablation for this localization. If the assumption is false, the method either barely moves the fairness metric (requiring lambda near 1, degenerating to full proportional OT) or distorts ranks at the transport boundary, potentially hurting AUC. This is a load-bearing point and needs direct evidence.
[Abstract] The claim that FairPOT 'consistently outperforms existing post-processing techniques' is a strong empirical assertion. The abstract does not report the number and types of datasets, the baselines compared, the evaluation protocol, or statistical significance tests. Without the experimental section, this claim is unsupported. The full text must provide these details, preferably with confidence intervals and ablations over lambda.
[Abstract] The tunable trade-off behavior as a function of lambda is not described. For a method whose main selling point is tunability, it is essential to show how the AUC fairness gap and global/partial AUC vary with lambda across datasets, whether the Pareto front is monotone, and how sensitive the results are to the choice of lambda. The phrase 'often achieving improved fairness with slight AUC degradation or even positive gains' is too vague to assess the practical value.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Typo: 'receiver operator characteristic' should be 'receiver operating characteristic'.
[Abstract] Define 'top-lambda quantile' precisely. Does lambda denote the fraction of the disadvantaged group's scores that are transported, and are those selected by raw score magnitude or by rank? This affects reproducibility.
[Abstract] Clarify what 'partial AUC' means in this context (e.g., restricted FPR range, restricted TPR range, or something else) and how the method extends to that setting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity evident from the abstract; the tunable lambda is a user-controlled design knob, not a fitted input, and the performance claims are evaluated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The abstract proposes FairPOT as a post-processing method that selectively transports the top-lambda quantile of scores for the disadvantaged group, with lambda explicitly described as a controllable knob for trading off AUC disparity and overall AUC. There is no indication that lambda is fitted to the test data or that the reported 'consistently outperforms' claim is derived from the method's own construction. The method is model-agnostic and evaluated on synthetic, public, and clinical datasets, which are external to the method's definition. The localizing assumption about where the AUC fairness gap originates is a possible limitation or correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the method could fail empirically without the claim being true by construction. No equations are available in the abstract to exhibit a reduction of output to input, and no self-citation is load-bearing. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract, the method introduces no new physical entities. The key free parameter is the user-set lambda. The ad hoc assumption about the top-lambda region is a potential liability.

free parameters (1)

lambda (top-lambda quantile)
User-chosen control parameter that sets the fraction of the disadvantaged group's scores to transform; not learned from data.

assumptions (3)

standard math Optimal transport maps exist and can align distributions while preserving individual score order.
Relies on standard optimal transport theory, likely used in the method without proof.
domain assumption AUC is a meaningful fairness metric over risk scores.
The paper evaluates fairness via AUC disparities; this assumes AUC reflects decision quality across groups.
ad hoc to paper The top-lambda quantile of the disadvantaged group's scores carries the information responsible for AUC disparity.
The method's selective transport is premised on this being the right intervention region; the abstract does not justify it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FairPOT: Balancing AUC Performance and Fairness with Proportional Optimal Transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6NX4XP5

@misc{pith2026250803940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FairPOT: Balancing AUC Performance and Fairness with Proportional Optimal Transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6NX4XP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03940}
}

read the original abstract

Fairness metrics utilizing the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) have gained increasing attention in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. In these domains, fairness is often evaluated over risk scores rather than binary outcomes, and a common challenge is that enforcing strict fairness can significantly degrade AUC performance. To address this challenge, we propose Fair Proportional Optimal Transport (FairPOT), a novel, model-agnostic post-processing framework that strategically aligns risk score distributions across different groups using optimal transport, but does so selectively by transforming a controllable proportion, i.e., the top-lambda quantile, of scores within the disadvantaged group. By varying lambda, our method allows for a tunable trade-off between reducing AUC disparities and maintaining overall AUC performance. Furthermore, we extend FairPOT to the partial AUC setting, enabling fairness interventions to concentrate on the highest-risk regions. Extensive experiments on synthetic, public, and clinical datasets show that FairPOT consistently outperforms existing post-processing techniques in both global and partial AUC scenarios, often achieving improved fairness with slight AUC degradation or even positive gains in utility. The computational efficiency and practical adaptability of FairPOT make it a promising solution for real-world deployment.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

Agarwal, S. 2011. The infinite push: A new support vector ranking algorithm that directly optimizes accuracy at the absolute top of the list. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 839--850. SIAM

work page 2011
[2]

Bao, M.; Zhou, A.; Zottola, S.; Brubach, B.; Desmarais, S.; Horowitz, A.; Lum, K.; and Venkatasubramanian, S. 2021. It's compaslicated: The messy relationship between rai datasets and algorithmic fairness benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05498

arXiv 2021
[3]

Borkan, D.; Dixon, L.; Sorensen, J.; Thain, N.; and Vasserman, L. 2019. Nuanced metrics for measuring unintended bias with real data for text classification. In Companion proceedings of the 2019 world wide web conference, 491--500

work page 2019
[4]

Buyl, M.; and De Bie, T. 2022. Optimal transport of classifiers to fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 33728--33740

work page 2022
[5]

M.; Fieguth, P

Carrington, A. M.; Fieguth, P. W.; Qazi, H.; Holzinger, A.; Chen, H. H.; Mayr, F.; and Manuel, D. G. 2020. A new concordant partial AUC and partial c statistic for imbalanced data in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 20: 1--12

work page 2020
[6]

Caton, S.; and Haas, C. 2024. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 56(7)

work page 2024
[7]

K.; and Omberg, L

Chaibub Neto, E.; Yadav, V.; Sieberts, S. K.; and Omberg, L. 2024. A novel estimator for the two-way partial AUC. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 24(1): 57

work page 2024
[8]

Chen, T.; and Guestrin, C. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 785--794

2016

Show all 57 references

[9]

Cui, S.; Pan, W.; Zhang, C.; and Wang, F. 2023. Bipartite ranking fairness through a model agnostic ordering adjustment. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(11): 13235--13249

2023
[10]

Dixon, L.; Li, J.; Sorensen, J.; Thain, N.; and Vasserman, L. 2018. Measuring and mitigating unintended bias in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 67--73

2018
[11]

E.; and Pepe, M

Dodd, L. E.; and Pepe, M. S. 2003. Partial AUC estimation and regression. Biometrics, 59(3): 614--623

2003
[12]

Dwork, C.; Hardt, M.; Pitassi, T.; Reingold, O.; and Zemel, R. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, 214--226

2012
[13]

A.; Neville, S.; Scheidegger, C.; and Venkatasubramanian, S

Ensign, D.; Friedler, S. A.; Neville, S.; Scheidegger, C.; and Venkatasubramanian, S. 2018. Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, 160--171. PMLR

2018
[14]

Fong, H.; Kumar, V.; Mehrotra, A.; and Vishnoi, N. K. 2021. Fairness for auc via feature augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12823

2021 arXiv
[15]

Ge, Y.; Zhao, X.; Yu, L.; Paul, S.; Hu, D.; Hsieh, C.-C.; and Zhang, Y. 2022. Toward pareto efficient fairness-utility trade-off in recommendation through reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 316--324

2022
[16]

K.; Balch, T.; and Veloso, M

Ghassemi, M.; Mishler, A.; Dalmasso, N.; Zhang, L.; Potluru, V. K.; Balch, T.; and Veloso, M. 2025. Auditing and Enforcing Conditional Fairness via Optimal Transport. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 16808--16816

2025
[17]

Gordaliza, P.; Del Barrio, E.; Fabrice, G.; and Loubes, J.-M. 2019. Obtaining fairness using optimal transport theory. In International conference on machine learning, 2357--2365. PMLR

2019
[18]

Han, Z.; Chen, C.; Zheng, X.; Li, M.; Liu, W.; Yao, B.; Li, Y.; and Yin, J. 2024. Intra-and inter-group optimal transport for user-oriented fairness in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 8463--8471

2024
[19]

Hardt, M.; Price, E.; and Srebro, N. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29

2016
[20]

Iwata, T.; Fujino, A.; and Ueda, N. 2020. Semi-supervised learning for maximizing the partial AUC. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 4239--4246

2020
[21]

Jiang, R.; Pacchiano, A.; Stepleton, T.; Jiang, H.; and Chiappa, S. 2020. Wasserstein fair classification. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 862--872. PMLR

2020
[22]

Kallus, N.; and Zhou, A. 2019. The fairness of risk scores beyond classification: Bipartite ranking and the xauc metric. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

2019
[23]

Kantorovich, L. 1942. On the transfer of masses (in Russian). In Doklady Akademii Nauk, volume 37, 227

1942
[24]

Kleinberg, J.; Mullainathan, S.; and Raghavan, M. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807

2016 arXiv
[25]

Laclau, C.; Redko, I.; Choudhary, M.; and Largeron, C. 2021. All of the fairness for edge prediction with optimal transport. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 1774--1782. PMLR

2021
[26]

Li, N.; Jin, R.; and Zhou, Z.-H. 2014. Top rank optimization in linear time. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27

2014
[27]

Martinez, N.; Bertran, M.; and Sapiro, G. 2020. Minimax pareto fairness: A multi objective perspective. In International conference on machine learning, 6755--6764. PMLR

2020
[28]

D.; Green, J

Mas-Colell, A.; Whinston, M. D.; Green, J. R.; et al. 1995. Microeconomic theory, volume 1. Oxford university press New York

1995
[29]

Mehrabi, N.; Morstatter, F.; Saxena, N.; Lerman, K.; and Galstyan, A. 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(6): 1--35

2021
[30]

Monge, G. 1781. M \'e moire sur la th \'e orie des d \'e blais et des remblais. Mem. Math. Phys. Acad. Royale Sci., 666--704
[31]

Moro, S.; Cortez, P.; and Rita, P. 2014. A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decision Support Systems, 62: 22--31

2014
[32]

Narasimhan, H.; and Agarwal, S. 2013 a . A structural SVM based approach for optimizing partial AUC. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 516--524. PMLR

2013
[33]

Narasimhan, H.; and Agarwal, S. 2013 b . SVMpAUCtight: a new support vector method for optimizing partial AUC based on a tight convex upper bound. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 167--175

2013
[34]

Pessach, D.; and Shmueli, E. 2022. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(3): 1--44

2022
[35]

D.; Corrado, G.; and Chin, M

Rajkomar, A.; Hardt, M.; Howell, M. D.; Corrado, G.; and Chin, M. H. 2018. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Annals of internal medicine, 169(12): 866--872

2018
[36]

Rudin, C. 2009. The p-norm push: A simple convex ranking algorithm that concentrates at the top of the list

2009
[37]

Rudin, C.; and Wang, Y. 2018. Direct learning to rank and rerank. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 775--783. PMLR

2018
[38]

B.; Flamary, R.; Courty, N.; Rolet, A.; and Blondel, M

Seguy, V.; Damodaran, B. B.; Flamary, R.; Courty, N.; Rolet, A.; and Blondel, M. 2017. Large-scale optimal transport and mapping estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.02283

2017 arXiv
[39]

Shi, W.; Wang, C.; Feng, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Wu, J.; and He, X. 2024. Lower-left partial auc: An effective and efficient optimization metric for recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, 3253--3264

2024
[40]

Silvia, C.; Ray, J.; Tom, S.; Aldo, P.; Heinrich, J.; and John, A. 2020. A general approach to fairness with optimal transport. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 3633--3640

2020
[41]

Suresh, H.; and Guttag, J. 2021. A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1--9

2021
[42]

Wei, S.; and Niethammer, M. 2022. The fairness-accuracy Pareto front. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 15(3): 287--302

2022
[43]

Xian, R.; Yin, L.; and Zhao, H. 2023. Fair and optimal classification via post-processing. In International conference on machine learning, 37977--38012. PMLR

2023
[44]

Xiao, L.; Min, Z.; Yongfeng, Z.; Zhaoquan, G.; Yiqun, L.; and Shaoping, M. 2017. Fairness-aware group recommendation with pareto-efficiency. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems, 107--115

2017
[45]

Xu, S.; and Strohmer, T. 2023. Fair data representation for machine learning at the Pareto frontier. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(331): 1--63

2023
[46]

Yang, H.; Lu, K.; Lyu, X.; and Hu, F. 2019. Two-way partial AUC and its properties. Statistical methods in medical research, 28(1): 184--195

2019
[47]

Yang, T. 2022. Algorithmic Foundations of Empirical X-Risk Minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00439

2022 arXiv
[48]

L.; Varshney, K

Yang, Z.; Ko, Y. L.; Varshney, K. R.; and Ying, Y. 2023. Minimax auc fairness: Efficient algorithm with provable convergence. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 11909--11917

2023
[49]

Yang, Z.; Xu, Q.; Bao, S.; He, Y.; Cao, X.; and Huang, Q. 2021. When all we need is a piece of the pie: A generic framework for optimizing two-way partial AUC. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 11820--11829. PMLR

2021
[50]

Yao, Y.; Lin, Q.; and Yang, T. 2022. Large-scale optimization of partial auc in a range of false positive rates. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 31239--31253

2022
[51]

Yao, Y.; Lin, Q.; and Yang, T. 2023. Stochastic methods for auc optimization subject to auc-based fairness constraints. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 10324--10342. PMLR

2023
[52]

Yuan, Z.; Zhu, D.; Qiu, Z.-H.; Li, G.; Wang, X.; and Yang, T. 2023. LibAUC: A Deep Learning Library for X-Risk Optimization. In 29th SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

2023
[53]

Zehlike, M.; Hacker, P.; and Wiedemann, E. 2020. Matching code and law: achieving algorithmic fairness with optimal transport. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 34(1): 163--200

2020
[54]

Zhu, D.; Li, G.; Wang, B.; Wu, X.; and Yang, T. 2022. When AUC meets DRO: Optimizing partial AUC for deep learning with non-convex convergence guarantee. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 27548--27573. PMLR

2022
[55]

Zhu, X.; Ren, X.; Shi, W.; Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Tao, T.; and Feng, F. 2024. Improving Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction through Partial AUC Optimization. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, 1170--1173

2024
[56]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...
[57]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Agarwal, S. 2011. The infinite push: A new support vector ranking algorithm that directly optimizes accuracy at the absolute top of the list. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 839--850. SIAM

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Bao, M.; Zhou, A.; Zottola, S.; Brubach, B.; Desmarais, S.; Horowitz, A.; Lum, K.; and Venkatasubramanian, S. 2021. It's compaslicated: The messy relationship between rai datasets and algorithmic fairness benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05498

arXiv 2021

[3] [3]

Borkan, D.; Dixon, L.; Sorensen, J.; Thain, N.; and Vasserman, L. 2019. Nuanced metrics for measuring unintended bias with real data for text classification. In Companion proceedings of the 2019 world wide web conference, 491--500

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Buyl, M.; and De Bie, T. 2022. Optimal transport of classifiers to fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 33728--33740

work page 2022

[5] [5]

M.; Fieguth, P

Carrington, A. M.; Fieguth, P. W.; Qazi, H.; Holzinger, A.; Chen, H. H.; Mayr, F.; and Manuel, D. G. 2020. A new concordant partial AUC and partial c statistic for imbalanced data in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 20: 1--12

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Caton, S.; and Haas, C. 2024. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 56(7)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

K.; and Omberg, L

Chaibub Neto, E.; Yadav, V.; Sieberts, S. K.; and Omberg, L. 2024. A novel estimator for the two-way partial AUC. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 24(1): 57

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Chen, T.; and Guestrin, C. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 785--794

2016