pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00826 · v1 · pith:745ALJMDnew · submitted 2026-05-30 · 💻 cs.LG

Partial Fairness Awareness: Belief-Guided Strategic Mechanism for Strategic Agents

Xinpeng Lv , Chunyuan Zheng , Yunxin Mao , Renzhe Xu , Hao Zou , Shanzhi Gu , Liyang Xu , Huan Chen
show 3 more authors
Yuanlong Chen Wenjing Yang Haotian Wang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 19:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords strategic machine learningfairness exposure dilemmapartial fairness awarenessbelief-guided mechanismstrategic agentsgroup fairness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Releasing candidate fairness constraints while concealing the true one allows agents to align beliefs through feedback and reduces fairness manipulation.

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

The paper examines the fairness exposure dilemma in strategic machine learning, where full disclosure of fairness constraints invites manipulation while complete secrecy harms welfare. It introduces partial fairness awareness by publishing a candidate set of constraints and hiding the grounding one. A belief-guided mechanism is proposed so agents maintain and update beliefs over the candidates via iterative interactions with the system. This setup is claimed to enable gradual alignment with the true constraint. Experiments indicate resulting benefits in fairness gaps and qualified acceptances over fully public or private alternatives.

Core claim

Releasing the candidate set of fairness constraints and concealing the grounding constraint mitigates the fairness exposure dilemma, and the belief-guided mechanism enables agents to gradually align their belief with the grounding fairness constraint through iterative interaction and feedback.

What carries the argument

The belief-guided strategic mechanism, wherein agents iteratively interact with the decision system and maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set of fairness constraints to gradually align with the grounding constraint.

If this is right

  • Agents gradually align their beliefs with the true fairness constraint through interaction.
  • The approach achieves lower group fairness gaps than fully public or private regimes.
  • Higher acceptance rates for truly qualified individuals are observed.
  • Outcomes are more stable compared to alternative fairness regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This mechanism could extend to other strategic decision settings where policies are partially revealed.
  • The size of the candidate set may affect the speed and accuracy of belief alignment.
  • If belief updates fail to converge, the fairness benefits may not hold.

Load-bearing premise

That agents will update their beliefs based on feedback in a manner that produces lower group fairness gaps and higher acceptance of qualified individuals.

What would settle it

An experiment demonstrating that the group fairness gaps do not decrease when the belief-guided mechanism is used, or that qualified individual acceptance rates do not improve relative to baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00826 by Chunyuan Zheng, Haotian Wang, Hao Zou, Huan Chen, Liyang Xu, Renzhe Xu, Shanzhi Gu, Wenjing Yang, Xinpeng Lv, Yuanlong Chen, Yunxin Mao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration for the fairness challenge in strategic classification. (a) Public fairness allows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the reversal phenomenon with public fairness in strategic classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of reduced welfare: Private fairness constraints result in the rejection of qualified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of belief-guided strategic mechanism: At each round, the agent updates its belief over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of demographic parity gap on different real-world and synthetic datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of social group welfare on different real-world and synthetic datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation experimental results of the belief initialization distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation experimental results of the belief initialization distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance of equal odds gap on different real-world and synthetic datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Strategic machine learning investigates scenarios where agents manipulate their features to receive favorable decisions from predictive models. To address fairness concerns intrinsic to strategic classification, recent work has introduced group-specific fairness constraints. However, current fairness-aware approaches face a fundamental dilemma in the issue of fairness exposure: making these constraints public enables strategic manipulation and can lead to fairness reversal, while keeping them hidden may reduce social welfare and discourage genuine improvement. To fill this gap, we subsequently propose the problem of partial fairness awareness (PFA), as our theoretical analysis informs that such a dilemma can be mitigated by releasing the candidate set of fairness constraints and concealing the grounding constraint. To be specific, we introduce a belief-guided strategic mechanism, wherein agents iteratively interact with the decision system and maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set of fairness constraints. This belief-guided process enables agents, through iterative interaction and feedback, to update their belief distribution over the candidate set, thereby gradually aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system. Extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that PFA achieves lower group fairness gaps, higher acceptance of truly qualified individuals, and more stable outcomes compared to fully public or private fairness regimes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Partial Fairness Awareness (PFA) to address the fairness exposure dilemma in strategic classification: releasing group-specific fairness constraints publicly risks manipulation and reversal, while keeping them fully private reduces welfare. The proposed solution releases a candidate set of constraints while concealing the grounding constraint, and introduces a belief-guided strategic mechanism in which agents maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set and update it iteratively via interaction and feedback to align with the hidden grounding constraint. Experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets are reported to yield lower group fairness gaps, higher acceptance of qualified individuals, and more stable outcomes than fully public or private regimes.

Significance. If the belief-update dynamics and convergence properties can be rigorously specified and verified, the work would provide a concrete mechanism for mitigating a recognized tension between transparency and strategic manipulation in fairness-aware ML. The partial-awareness framing is novel relative to existing public/private regimes and could inform deployment choices when full concealment is impractical.

major comments (3)
  1. [mechanism description / abstract] The description of the belief-guided mechanism (abstract and mechanism section) supplies no explicit belief-update rule (Bayesian, multiplicative-weights, or otherwise), no interaction/feedback protocol, and no convergence theorem or guarantee under strategic manipulation; without these the central claim that agents 'gradually align their belief with the grounding fairness constraint' is unverifiable and the experimental improvements rest on an untested behavioral assumption.
  2. [experiments / abstract] Experimental claims (abstract) assert lower fairness gaps and more stable outcomes on real-world and synthetic datasets, yet provide no model specification, error bars, data-exclusion criteria, or statistical tests; this renders the quantitative support for the PFA regime uninspectable and load-bearing for the paper's empirical contribution.
  3. [theoretical analysis / abstract] The alignment claim is defined in terms of the outcome it is supposed to produce ('aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system'), creating a risk that the result is tautological once the belief model is specified; a concrete test (e.g., distance to grounding constraint under best-response dynamics) is needed to establish non-circularity.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the candidate set, grounding constraint, and belief distribution should be introduced with explicit symbols and updated consistently across sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be incorporated to strengthen the presentation of the belief-guided mechanism, experimental reporting, and theoretical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The description of the belief-guided mechanism (abstract and mechanism section) supplies no explicit belief-update rule (Bayesian, multiplicative-weights, or otherwise), no interaction/feedback protocol, and no convergence theorem or guarantee under strategic manipulation; without these the central claim that agents 'gradually align their belief with the grounding fairness constraint' is unverifiable and the experimental improvements rest on an untested behavioral assumption.

    Authors: The abstract summarizes the high-level idea of iterative interaction and belief updating. The mechanism section describes agents maintaining a distribution over the candidate set and revising it based on observed decision outcomes. To make the central claim verifiable, we will add an explicit multiplicative-weights update rule, a precise description of the feedback protocol (including what information is revealed after each interaction), and a convergence analysis under strategic best-response dynamics in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Experimental claims (abstract) assert lower fairness gaps and more stable outcomes on real-world and synthetic datasets, yet provide no model specification, error bars, data-exclusion criteria, or statistical tests; this renders the quantitative support for the PFA regime uninspectable and load-bearing for the paper's empirical contribution.

    Authors: The experiments section specifies the datasets, models, and reports quantitative results across multiple runs. To improve inspectability of the claims made in the abstract, we will revise the abstract to briefly note the experimental protocol and add explicit error bars, data-exclusion criteria, and statistical tests (e.g., paired t-tests) to the experiments section. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The alignment claim is defined in terms of the outcome it is supposed to produce ('aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system'), creating a risk that the result is tautological once the belief model is specified; a concrete test (e.g., distance to grounding constraint under best-response dynamics) is needed to establish non-circularity.

    Authors: Alignment is defined with respect to a fixed, system-chosen grounding constraint that is independent of any agent's belief model. We will add a formal non-circular definition of alignment using a divergence metric between the agent's belief and the grounding constraint, together with an analysis of this distance under best-response dynamics, to be included in the theoretical analysis section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity identified; claims rest on unspecified mechanism without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The provided abstract and description contain no equations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no self-citations that bear the load of the central claim. The belief-alignment outcome is asserted as resulting from the iterative process, but the text supplies neither an explicit update rule nor a derivation that reduces the result to its own definition by construction. Without load-bearing mathematical steps or self-citation chains in the given text, the derivation cannot be shown to collapse into its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no equations or proofs; therefore no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted. The central claim rests on an unstated belief-update rule and convergence assumption that are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5771 in / 1095 out tokens · 16030 ms · 2026-06-28T19:11:12.618715+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    What does it mean to'solve'the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems , author=. Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    2020

  2. [2]

    Information Systems Research , year=

    Strategic Best-Response Fairness Framework for Fair Machine Learning , author=. Information Systems Research , year=

  3. [3]

    2021 , eprint=

    Optimal Recovery of Precision Matrix for Mahalanobis Distance from High Dimensional Noisy Observations in Manifold Learning , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  4. [4]

    Is algorithmic affirmative action legal , author=. Geo. LJ , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  5. [5]

    Improving ratings: Audit in the British university system.European Review, 5(3):305–321, 1997

    ‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system , volume=. European Review , author=. 1997 , pages=. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4 , number=

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1234-981x(199707)5:3 1997

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Contrastive counterfactual fairness in algorithmic decision-making , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    2022

  7. [7]

    Race-aware algorithms: Fairness, nondiscrimination and affirmative action , author=. Cal. L. Rev. , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  8. [8]

    Frontiers in artificial intelligence , volume=

    Addressing fairness, bias, and appropriate use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in global health , author=. Frontiers in artificial intelligence , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  9. [9]

    2015 , url =

    Alex Teboul , title =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  10. [10]

    2023 , isbn =

    Estornell, Andrew and Das, Sanmay and Liu, Yang and Vorobeychik, Yevgeniy , title =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3593013.3594006 , booktitle =

    work page doi:10.1145/3593013.3594006 2023

  11. [11]

    When Tabular Foundation Models Meet Strategic Tabular Data: A Prior Alignment Approach

    When Tabular Foundation Models Meet Strategic Tabular Data: A Prior Alignment Approach , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19662 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Breaking the Gradient Barrier: Unveiling Large Language Models for Strategic Classification , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  13. [13]

    Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification

    Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19674 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    , author=

    MACHINE LEARNING IN EDUCATION-A SURVEY OF CURRENT RESEARCH TRENDS. , author=. Annals of DAAAM & Proceedings , volume=

  15. [15]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    The disparate effects of strategic manipulation , author=. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

  16. [16]

    2017 , eprint=

    Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferences , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  17. [17]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Learning strategy-aware linear classifiers , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  18. [18]

    Financial Management , volume=

    The roles of alternative data and machine learning in fintech lending: evidence from the LendingClub consumer platform , author=. Financial Management , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  19. [19]

    international conference on machine learning , pages=

    Recommendations as treatments: Debiasing learning and evaluation , author=. international conference on machine learning , pages=. 2016 , organization=

    2016

  20. [20]

    , booktitle =

    Harris, Keegan and Heidari, Hoda and Wu, Steven Z. , booktitle =. Stateful Strategic Regression , url =

  21. [21]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    From predictions to decisions: Using lookahead regularization , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  22. [22]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , volume=

    Stable learning establishes some common ground between causal inference and machine learning , author=. Nature Machine Intelligence , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00124 , year=

    On classification of strategic agents who can both game and improve , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00124 , year=

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16608 , year=

    Performative prediction: Past and future , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16608 , year=

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    Forecasting , volume=

    Evaluating state-of-the-art, forecasting ensembles and meta-learning strategies for model fusion , author=. Forecasting , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  26. [26]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Stable prediction with model misspecification and agnostic distribution shift , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  27. [27]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Deep stable learning for out-of-distribution generalization , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  28. [28]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    The Role of Randomness and Noise in Strategic Classification. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.08377 , archivePrefix =. 2005.08377 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.08377 2005

  29. [29]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    Adaptive bias correction for improved subseasonal forecasting , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  30. [30]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , volume=

    Stable prediction with leveraging seed variable , author=. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  31. [31]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

    Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  32. [32]

    Journal of Causal Inference , doi =

    Confounding Equivalence in Causal Inference , author =. Journal of Causal Inference , doi =. 2014 , lastchecked =

    2014

  33. [33]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    An investigation of why overparameterization exacerbates spurious correlations , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  34. [34]

    Causality: objectives and assessment , pages=

    Causal inference , author=. Causality: objectives and assessment , pages=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  35. [35]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Performative prediction , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  36. [36]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Performative power , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  37. [37]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Stochastic optimization for performative prediction , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  38. [38]

    Journal of engineering , volume=

    Conceptual framework for the strategic management: a literature review—descriptive , author=. Journal of engineering , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  39. [39]

    Journal of Human Resources , volume=

    Admissions policies, cohort composition, and academic success: Evidence from California , author=. Journal of Human Resources , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  40. [40]

    Expert Systems with Applications , volume=

    Bagging supervised autoencoder classifier for credit scoring , author=. Expert Systems with Applications , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  41. [41]

    Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering , volume=

    Moving from exascale to zettascale computing: challenges and techniques , author=. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  42. [42]

    CCF Transactions on High Performance Computing , volume=

    Parallel programming models for heterogeneous many-cores: a comprehensive survey , author=. CCF Transactions on High Performance Computing , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  43. [43]

    Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on innovations in theoretical computer science , pages=

    Strategic classification , author=. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on innovations in theoretical computer science , pages=

    2016

  44. [44]

    Journal of Legal Analysis , volume=

    Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms , author=. Journal of Legal Analysis , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  45. [45]

    Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

    Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness , author=. Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

  46. [46]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    The social cost of strategic classification , author=. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

  47. [47]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Strategic classification is causal modeling in disguise , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  48. [48]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Strategic instrumental variable regression: Recovering causal relationships from strategic responses , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  49. [49]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Anticipating performativity by predicting from predictions , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  50. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01956 , year=

    Maximizing welfare with incentive-aware evaluation mechanisms , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01956 , year=

    work page arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Who leads and who follows in strategic classification? , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  52. [52]

    Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages=

    Incentive mechanisms for strategic classification and regression problems , author=. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages=

  53. [53]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , volume=

    Consensus reaching and strategic manipulation in group decision making with trust relationships , author=. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  54. [54]

    Elisa , title =

    Keswani, Vijay and Celis, L. Elisa , title =. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , articleno =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3617694.3623252 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3617694.3623252 2023

  55. [55]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

    Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  56. [56]

    International Journal of Economics and Finance , volume=

    Audit independence and expectation gap: Empirical evidences from Iran , author=. International Journal of Economics and Finance , volume=

  57. [57]

    Statistics & Probability Letters , year=2006, volume=

    Bisgaard, Torben Maack and Sasvári, Zoltán , title=. Statistics & Probability Letters , year=2006, volume=. doi:, abstract=

    2006

  58. [58]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    Gaming helps! learning from strategic interactions in natural dynamics , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  59. [59]

    Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Testing independence between linear combinations for causal discovery , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  60. [60]

    Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices , author=. Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    2020

  61. [61]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=

    Learning to Incentivize Improvements from Strategic Agents , author=. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  62. [62]

    , author=

    Learning a Mahalanobis metric from equivalence constraints. , author=. Journal of machine learning research , volume=

  63. [63]

    Logistic Regression

    Nick, Todd G.and Campbell, Kathleen M. Logistic Regression. Topics in Biostatistics. 2007. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_14 2007

  64. [64]

    2016 , howpublished =

    Yeh,I-Cheng , title =. 2016 , howpublished =

    2016

  65. [65]

    2014 , howpublished =

    Cortez,Paulo , title =. 2014 , howpublished =

    2014

  66. [66]

    ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) , volume=

    How do classifiers induce agents to invest effort strategically? , author=. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  67. [67]

    Noise reduction in speech processing , pages=

    Pearson correlation coefficient , author=. Noise reduction in speech processing , pages=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  68. [68]

    Educational research review , volume=

    Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research , author=. Educational research review , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  69. [69]

    Invariant Risk Minimization

    Invariant risk minimization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  70. [70]

    International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=

    Variational autoencoders and nonlinear ica: A unifying framework , author=. International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  71. [71]

    European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Discriminative decorrelation for clustering and classification , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=. 2012 , organization=

    2012

  72. [72]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Treatment effect estimation with data-driven variable decomposition , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  73. [73]

    Handbook of income distribution , volume=

    Equality of opportunity , author=. Handbook of income distribution , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  74. [74]

    Northpointe Inc , volume=

    COMPAS risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity , author=. Northpointe Inc , volume=

  75. [75]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Learning Fair Representations , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

  76. [76]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  77. [77]

    When does E (Xk

    Bisgaard, Torben Maack and Sasv. When does E (Xk. Statistics & probability letters , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  78. [78]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Generalized demographic parity for group fairness , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  79. [79]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Strategic classification under unknown personalized manipulation , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  80. [80]

    Journal of Theoretical Probability , volume=

    How close is the sample covariance matrix to the actual covariance matrix? , author=. Journal of Theoretical Probability , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

Showing first 80 references.