Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 17 references

This paper proves that a fair, meritocratic admission rule produces permanent, self-reinforcing inequality once the leading group receives even a tiny affinity boost.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:56 UTC pith:MKHJQF3Y

load-bearing objection A clean theoretical result with a heavy modeling assumption: the entrenchment conclusion is real but depends on a step-function affinity boost, not on the size of epsilon. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07478 v2 pith:MKHJQF3Y submitted 2025-10-08 cs.CY cs.GTphysics.soc-ph

Fixed Points and Stochastic Meritocracies: A Long-Term Perspective

Gaurab Pokharel , Diptangshu Sen , Sanmay Das , Juba Ziani This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.GTphysics.soc-ph
keywords fairnessmeritocratic selectionintergenerational mobilityfeedback loopsaffinity advantagefixed pointsstochastic dynamicscollege admissions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper studies whether a college-admission rule that is fair at every step—always prioritizing qualified candidates while keeping selection rates equal across groups—stays fair over generations. It models two identical groups and proves that without group-level feedback, the expected dynamics converge from any starting point to a unique fixed point where both groups have the same high-type fraction, αp; temporary gaps caused by randomness decay. The central finding is that introducing even a tiny 'affinity advantage' (a fixed extra probability ε for non-admitted members of the group that currently has more high types) destroys this parity: for every ε>0 there is a separating fixed point, and for ε above a threshold the trailing group is entirely excluded from college. This matters because it shows that static fairness metrics do not guarantee long-run fairness, and that pure chance can harden into permanent stratification.

Core claim

Under the Equal Advantage model, the expected dynamics have a unique fixed point (αp, αp) that is reached from any starting state, so a selection rule that is meritocratic and fair at each step restores parity on average. Under the Affinity Advantage model, the unique fixed point has x_A > x_B for every ε>0; when ε ≥ ε̃ = 2α(1-p)/(1-2α), the fixed point is exactly (2α(p-ε)+ε, 0), meaning the leading group holds all high types and the trailing group is completely absent from the admitted population. The paper derives lower bounds on separation for smaller ε and verifies in a continuous-ability simulation that the same qualitative behavior persists.

What carries the argument

The expected-dynamics map T(x,y) = (E[X_A(t+1)|x,y], E[X_B(t+1)|x,y]) and its fixed points, which characterize long-run average outcomes for each group. The analysis splits into over-subscribed and under-subscribed regimes and hinges on the affinity parameter ε: the threshold ε̃ = 2α(1-p)/(1-2α), where α is the college capacity fraction and p is the probability that admission makes an individual high-type, marks the boundary between full exclusion of the trailing group and a partially separated equilibrium with a closed-form lower bound on the gap.

Load-bearing premise

The persistence result rests on the assumption that every non-admitted member of the leading group receives the same fixed probability ε of becoming high-type, no matter how small the lead, how large the group, or whether the individual has any contact with high types; if the real boost is weaker, saturates, or requires direct contact, the separating fixed point need not exist.

What would settle it

Measure the actual transition rate of non-admitted members of the leading group as a function of the lead size: the model assumes a constant ε even when the lead is tiny. If the measured boost vanishes as x_A−x_B approaches zero, or declines with group size N, then the threshold ε̃ overstates the regime of permanent exclusion and the system will not converge to (2α(p−ε)+ε, 0).

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Static fairness is not enough: a rule that is fair at every step can still produce permanently unequal outcomes once group-level affinity feedback exists.
  • Any positive ε guarantees a long-run separation under the Affinity Advantage model; for ε at or above the threshold, the trailing group is completely excluded from the program.
  • Under Equal Advantage, parity returns on average, but the time to recover grows sharply as p approaches 1, so more effective programs take longer to erase accumulated advantage.
  • In small populations, stochasticity alone can create large temporary disparities from symmetric starts, and these are worse at low capacity α.
  • The continuous-ability simulation reproduces the model's qualitative predictions, indicating the results do not depend on the binary-type simplification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real affinity effects depend on the size of the lead or require direct contact with high-type individuals, the constant-ε threshold is likely to soften: inequality may persist only above a minimal lead size, a prediction testable in the richer simulation by setting ε proportional to x_A−x_B.
  • The model identifies a concrete intervention target: reducing ε (the group-level network boost) below the threshold avoids complete exclusion, while capacity expansion α can shrink but not eliminate separation—suggesting anti-network policies may matter more than quotas.
  • In high-stakes, small-cohort settings (fellowships, internships, youth athletics), deliberate randomization of scarce slots could stop the initial stochastic lead from forming, since the feedback loop amplifies any early gap.
  • The sharp threshold ε̃ = 2α(1-p)/(1-2α) gives designers a quantitative calibration target, though the paper's lower bounds leave the intermediate-ε regime only partially characterized.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-group intergenerational model of meritocratic selection into a scarce 'college'. In the Equal Advantage (EA) model, admitted students become high with probability p, rejected high types persist with probability q, and rejected low types never upgrade; the expected dynamics are shown to have a unique fixed point (αp, αp) reached from any initial state, so fair-at-each-step selection yields long-run parity, while stochastic separation arises but dissipates. In the Affinity Advantage (AA) model, all non-admitted members of the leading group receive an extra probability ε of high status; the paper claims a unique asymmetric fixed point for every ε>0 when starting from a lead, with the closed form x_A=2α(p−ε)+ε, x_B=0 for ε above the threshold ε̃=2α(1−p)/(1−2α). A continuous-ability simulation model is used to argue that the qualitative pattern persists.

Significance. If the results hold as stated, the paper makes a useful conceptual point: static fairness criteria can fail in the long run, and stochastic shocks can become entrenched via group-level feedback. The EA analysis is transparent and parsimonious, with no fitted parameters; the AA threshold and the exclusion fixed point are striking, falsifiable predictions. The main intellectual risk is that the entrenchment result is generated by a discontinuous step-function feedback, so the 'even a slight asymmetry' framing overstates the continuity of the modeled mechanism. The simulations corroborate the qualitative pattern but use the same step rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, 'Selection Rule'] The prose defining the two regimes is reversed. It states 'When capacity is limited (i.e., N X(t)<C)' for the rule A_i=X_i/X·2Nα, but if total high types are below capacity all high types are admitted and residual seats are filled by low types—that is the under-subscribed regime, whose formula is the one given under 'capacity abundant'. The Appendix (Theorem 1 proof) and Theorems 3/4 use the opposite convention (over-subscribed iff x_A+x_B≥2α). The Section 2 inequalities must be corrected so the model definition agrees with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Section 3.2, Theorem 4] The theorem states 'the system has a unique fixed point' for each range of ε, but in the actual symmetric Model 2 the tie state (αp, αp) is also a fixed point of T: when x_A=x_B neither group receives ε, and the EA under-subscribed transition maps (αp, αp) to itself. The 'WLOG group A has the affinity advantage' is valid only on the open half-space x_A>x_B; it does not cover the diagonal. The uniqueness claim should be restricted to x>y (with the mirror claim for x<y), or the diagonal branch should be analyzed explicitly. As written, the word 'unique' is mathematically false.
  3. [Appendix A.6, Lemma 3] The proof of uniqueness for ε<ε̃ is incomplete. The argument introduces the quadratic g(y)=y^2−(2+2αp)y+4αp+2(1−α)(1−x_A)ε, whose coefficients depend on the unknown x_A. Showing that only the smaller root of g can lie below 2α does not show that two fixed points with different (x_A,y) cannot both yield their own smaller root. The sentence 'once x_A+x_B is determined uniquely, x_A and x_B are also characterized uniquely' is asserted, not demonstrated. Please give a self-contained uniqueness proof (e.g., derive a single equation in y=x_A+x_B by substituting the expression for x_A from the individual fixed-point equations) or state the result as existence plus bounds.
  4. [Sections 4 and 5] The persistent-disparity conclusions are generated by a step-function affinity advantage: ε is applied to all non-admits of the leading group whenever x_A>x_B, regardless of the size or quality of the lead. The richer simulation in Section 4 uses the same step rule ('if one group has more members admitted'), so it does not test whether entrenchment survives a continuous, saturating, or lead-size-dependent affinity. The Discussion's assertion that 'any positive group-level feedback pushes the leading group further ahead' is plausible but is not established by the simulations. A continuous-affinity variant would substantially strengthen the robustness claim; at minimum, the 'even a slight asymmetry' language should be qualified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Model 2] Typo: 'network efforts' should be 'network effects'.
  2. [Appendix A.6, Lemma 1, Subcase b] The contradiction step contains a typo: the line '2α−2αx_B<2−2x_B' should be '2α−2αx_B<2α−2x_B'. As written, the subsequent implication is garbled.
  3. [Appendix A.5, Theorem 5 proof] The notation δ0 is introduced for the allowed failure probability but the theorem statement uses ω. Please make the notation consistent.
  4. [References] The reference 'Pilat and Krastev' is incomplete (no title or publication venue).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are derived from explicitly stated transition rules; no prediction reduces to fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are mathematical consequences of the transition models it explicitly defines. Theorem 2's parity fixed point (x_A = x_B = αp) is obtained by solving the EA transition equations; Theorem 4's persistent-disparity fixed points are obtained by substituting the AA transition equations into the definition of a fixed point. The affinity advantage ε is an introduced modeling assumption, not a fitted parameter, and the paper does not fit any quantity to a subset of data and then present a closely related quantity as a prediction. Theorem 1's uniqueness claim is proved constructively from the stated definitions of meritocratic, fair, and efficient, rather than imported from a citation. The self-citations (e.g., Acharya et al. 2023 for network effects, Pokharel et al. 2024 for holistic review) appear in contextual/related-work passages and are not load-bearing for the theorems. The richer simulation model is presented as a robustness check with the same qualitative primitives, not as an independent empirical confirmation of a fitted constant. The strongest possible concern—that the AA entrenchment result is an artifact of the step-function affinity rule—concerns the plausibility of the modeling assumption, not circularity: the theorem quantifies consequences of that assumption rather than restating it. No circular step requiring a specific reduction was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims are derived from a self-contained stochastic model. The model's inputs alpha, p, q, epsilon, N are hand-chosen stylized parameters rather than empirically estimated quantities. The affinity advantage epsilon is the only entity introduced specifically to produce persistence, with no independent empirical anchor. The normal-approximation assumption is standard but unquantified.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (college capacity fraction)
    Model input: only a fraction 2 alpha of the population is admitted; 0 < alpha < 1/2. Varied in simulations; no empirical calibration.
  • p (college success probability)
    Probability that an admitted student becomes high type; q << p; parameter of the model, not fitted.
  • q (persistence of rejected high types)
    Probability that a rejected high-type remains high; set to 0 in the theoretical AA analysis and positive in simulations; model input.
  • epsilon (affinity advantage)
    Extra probability of upward transition for all non-admitted members of the currently leading group. Central to the persistent-separation theorem; introduced ad hoc from qualitative network-effect literature, not estimated from data.
  • N (group size)
    Population size per group; finite-N stochasticity drives short-term separation. Used as a parameter in Theorems 3 and 5 and in simulations.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption An individual is either high-type or low-type, and the college observes this type perfectly.
    Used throughout Section 2; the model has no noise in merit measurement, so the selection rule is deterministic.
  • domain assumption Transitions are independent Bernoulli draws with probability p/q (or q+epsilon/epsilon) determined only by admission status and group leadership.
    Section 2, Type Transitions; this makes the process a Markov chain and enables closed-form T.
  • domain assumption Both groups are intrinsically identical in the EA model: no group ever receives preferential treatment.
    EA model in Section 2; the parity result depends on this symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper In the AA model, the leading group's affinity advantage is a constant epsilon applied uniformly to all non-admitted members, including all low types, regardless of the size of the lead.
    Model 2 in Section 2; this term generates permanent disparity; no mechanism or empirical measure constrains its uniformity or magnitude.
  • domain assumption For sufficiently large N, binomial transition counts are approximated by normal distributions; Theorems 3 and 5 rely on this approximation.
    Appendix A.3 explicitly says the proofs work under the normal approximation; no error bounds are given.
invented entities (1)
  • Affinity advantage (epsilon-feedback) no independent evidence
    purpose: Models network effects by giving every non-admitted member of the group with more high-type individuals an extra chance epsilon to become high; this is the mechanism that converts transient stochastic leads into permanent disparities.
    No falsifiable prediction or calibrated effect size is provided; the parameter is motivated only by qualitative citations (Merton, Bloome et al.). The model would reduce to parity at epsilon = 0.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31874 in / 19445 out tokens · 167915 ms · 2026-08-04T10:56:22.453999+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixed Points and Stochastic Meritocracies: A Long-Term Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKHJQF3Y

@misc{pith2026251007478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixed Points and Stochastic Meritocracies: A Long-Term Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKHJQF3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.07478}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study group fairness in the context of feedback loops induced by meritocratic selection into programs that themselves confer additional advantage, like college admissions. We introduce a stylized, yet novel inter-generational model for the setting and analyze it in situations where there are no underlying differences between two populations. When the benefit of the program (or the harm of not getting into it) is completely symmetric, we show that disparities between the two populations will vanish on average in the long term, although in the short term disparities will continue to arise and dissipate cyclically. Further, the time an accumulated advantage takes to dissipate can be significant, and increases as a function of the relative importance of the program in conveying benefits. Interestingly, significant disparities can arise purely due to randomness even from completely symmetric initial conditions, especially when populations are small. The introduction of even a slight asymmetry, where the group that has accumulated an advantage becomes slightly preferred, leads to a completely different outcome. In these instances, starting from completely symmetric initial conditions, disparities between groups arise stochastically and then persist over time, yielding a permanent advantage for one group. Our analysis precisely characterizes conditions under which disparities persist or diminish, with a particular focus on the role of the scarcity of available spots in the program and its effectiveness. We also present extensive simulations in a richer model that further support our theoretical results in the simpler, stylized model. Our findings are relevant for the design and implementation of algorithmic fairness interventions in similar selection processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07478 by Diptangshu Sen, Gaurab Pokharel, Juba Ziani, Sanmay Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample trajectories of the fraction of high-types in each group (top) and the fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average maximum separation E[maxt≤T |∆(t)|] achieved versus population size N for different capacity parameters α (T = 100, p = 0.90, q = 0.40). The left panel shows the trend for smaller N (10 ≤ N ≤ 100). The right panel highlights that the trend continues for large N — the expected maximum level of separation achieved over T steps continues to shrink and approaches zero. At low capacities, the extent of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sample trajectories showing the impact of adding a small affinity advantage ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Equilibrium separation (∆, solid, blue, with markers) and the lower bound on sepa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Depiction of how affinity advantage (µϵ) affects ability distributions and admission outcomes over time. We compare two identical initial groups (group A and group B) under no advantage (left, µϵ = σϵ = 0) and with advantage (right, µϵ = 0.20, σϵ = 0.10) at time steps t = 1, 10, 20, 99. The vertical red line indicates the admission threshold. On the right, the ability distribution for one group progressive… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmap showing the share of the leading group (with higher mean ability) out of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Feasible space with sub-regions 1. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots showing how the mean time to η-parity depends on q (left) and p (right) for a target η of 0.01 and a starting point (XA(0), XB(0) = (0.9, 0.1)) with an initial separation of 0.8. Other parameters of interest: α = 0.30, N = 2000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average time (in generations) the system (under the EA model) needs to reach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heatmap showing how the upper bound in Theorem 3 compares to the empirical time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Figure showing equilibrium separation as a function of the affinity advantage when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Outcomes for the Affinity Advantage model, showing the long-run separation (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_12.png] view at source ↗

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

17 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    First, we will show that under the Equal Advantage (EA) model, the system has exactly one fixed point (x A, xB) in the under-subscribed regime withx A =x B =αp

  2. [2]

    This also implies that the above fixed point must be the unique fixed point of the system

    Then we show that for any starting point (X A(0), XB(0))∈[0,1] 2, the system will always reach the above fixed point. This also implies that the above fixed point must be the unique fixed point of the system. There exists one fixed point in the under-subscribed regime under the EA model. By the definition of a fixed point and the system dynamics in the un...

  3. [3]

    So, we will first establish existence of a fixed point in the under-subscribed regime by Brouwer’s fixed point theorem (Lemma 2)

    However, whenϵ <˜ϵ, we will have to follow a different approach because we cannot characterize the fixed point in closed form. So, we will first establish existence of a fixed point in the under-subscribed regime by Brouwer’s fixed point theorem (Lemma 2). Then, we will argue that this must be the only fixed point in the under-subscribed regime and charac...

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x

    ISSN 1740-9705, 1740-9713. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x. URLhttps: //academic.oup.com/jrssig/article/13/5/14/7029190. John D. Marvel. The paradox of meritocracy: System justification and inequality in federal agen- cies. 55:415–437, July 2025. ISSN 0275-0740, 1552-3357. doi: 10.1177/02750740251340069. URLhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0...

    arXiv 2016

  5. [7]

    First, we will show that whenϵ≥˜ϵand is in favour of groupA, the system has a fixed point (xA, xB) in the over-subscribed regime, given byx A = 2α(p−ϵ) +ϵ,x B = 0 (Claim 1). 29

  6. [8]

    This should immediately imply that the above fixed point is the unique fixed point of the system whenϵ≥˜ϵ(Lemma 1)

    Next, we will show that whenϵ≥˜ϵ, for any starting point where groupAis better off, the system will always reach the above fixed point. This should immediately imply that the above fixed point is the unique fixed point of the system whenϵ≥˜ϵ(Lemma 1)

  7. [10]

    Finally, we will show that for any starting point, the system always converges to the only fixed point of the under-subscribed regime whenϵ <˜ϵ, further implying this must be the unique fixed point of the system whenϵ <˜ϵ(Lemma 4). We now present proofs for the individual steps: Claim1.Whenϵ≥˜ϵ= 2α(1−p) (1−2α) and is in favour of groupA, the system has a ...

  8. [11]

    We have already argued thatx A(t) +xB(t)≥2α=⇒ xA(t+ 1) +x B(t+ 1)≥2α

    Observe thatx B(t+ 1) = xB(t) xA(t)+xB(t) ·(2αp) implies thatx B(t+ 1)≤p·x B(t) since xA(t) +xB(t)≥2αby assumption. We have already argued thatx A(t) +xB(t)≥2α=⇒ xA(t+ 1) +x B(t+ 1)≥2α. Therefore, the same applies at time stept+ 1 implying thatx B(t+ 2)≤p·x B(t+ 1)≤p 2 ·x B(t). By induction,x B(t+n)≤p n ·x B(t). Thus, limn→∞{xB(t+n)}= 0

  9. [12]

    We have already shown that by choosingnlarge enough,x B(t+n) can be made arbitrarily small

    Sincex A(t) +x B(t)≥2α, we know that for anyn≥1,x A(t+n) +x B(t+n)≥2α. We have already shown that by choosingnlarge enough,x B(t+n) can be made arbitrarily small. Therefore, xA(t+n) xA(t+n) +x B(t+n) →1

  10. [13]

    Using the last observation, we conclude that: lim n→∞ xA(t+n) = lim n→∞ xA(t+n−1) xA(t+n−1) +x B(t+n−1) ·(2α)(p−ϵ) +ϵ= 2α(p−ϵ) +ϵ. This concludes the first part of the proof — if the starting point lies in the over-subscribed regime, the system will always converge to the fixed point (x A, xB) given by (2α(p−ϵ) +ϵ,0). Subcase b):Now, suppose that (x A(t),...

  11. [14]

    3.g(y) attains its minimum value aty= 1 +αp

    We can verify thatg(2αp) = 2(1−α)(1−x A)>0. 3.g(y) attains its minimum value aty= 1 +αp. Sinceg(y) = 0 has distinct real roots, g(1 +αp) must be<0 which implies the discriminant is>0 or equivalently, (1−αp) 2 > 2(1−α)(1−x A)ϵorx A >1− (1−αp)2 2(1−α)ϵ . Sinceg(·) is clearly a continuous function, by the intermediate value theorem, we must also haveg(2α)<0....

  12. [15]

    As shown in Figure 7, any feasible starting point can belong in one of the 3 sub-regions: O,U < andU ≥. The 3 sub-regions are defined as follows: O:= (x, y)∈R 2 : 0≤x, y≤1, x > y, x+y≥2α ; U< := (x, y)∈R 2 : 0≤x, y≤1, x > y, x+y <2α, x <1−2α(1−p) ϵ ; U≥ := (x, y)∈R 2 : 0≤x, y≤1, x > y, x+y <2α, x≥1− 2α(1−p) ϵ

  13. [16]

    Recall that we have already shown (in the proof for Lemma 2) that once the system reachesU ≥, it will continue to remain there at all future time points

    We will show that irrespective of the starting point (eitherOorU <), the system will always eventually reachU ≥. Recall that we have already shown (in the proof for Lemma 2) that once the system reachesU ≥, it will continue to remain there at all future time points

  14. [17]

    Starting at any point inO, the system always reachesU ≥.First we will show that starting at any point inO, the systemcannotstay inOindefinitely

    Finally, we will show that any starting point inU ≥ always converges to the only fixed point inU ≥. Starting at any point inO, the system always reachesU ≥.First we will show that starting at any point inO, the systemcannotstay inOindefinitely. We will prove by contradiction. Suppose, there exists a starting point inOsuch that the system stays inOfor all ...

    2000

  15. [2016]

    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2477899

    ISSN 1556-5068. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2477899. URLhttps://www.ssrn.com/abstract= 2477899. Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan.Fairness and Machine Learning: Limi- tations and Opportunities. MIT Press, 2023. Yahav Bechavod, Katrina Ligett, Steven Wu, and Juba Ziani. Gaming helps! learning from strategic interactions in natural dynamics. In Arinda...

    arXiv 2023

  16. [5153]

    URLhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/ 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015/abstract

    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015. URLhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/ 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015/abstract. Sorelle A. Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. The (im)possibility of fairness: different value systems require different mechanisms for fair decision making. Commun. ACM, 64(4):136–143, March 2021. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10....

    arXiv 2015

  17. [8969]

    Augmenting Holistic Review in University Admission using Natural Language Processing for Essays and Recommendation Letters

    doi: 10.4230/LIPICS.ITCS.2017.43. URLhttps://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/ document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43. Jinsook Lee, Bradon Thymes, Joyce Zhou, Thorsten Joachims, and Rene F. Kizilcec. Augment- ing holistic review in university admission using natural language processing for essays and recommendation letters. (arXiv:2306.17575), June 2023. doi: 10....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.17575 2017