Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Lookahead Counterfactual Fairness

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a linear causal model with gradient-ascent responses, a predictor that includes a quadratic term in the counterfactual label equalizes the future status $Y'$ between factual and counterfactual worlds.

desk verdict The LCF notion and the binary-A construction are genuinely new and the algebra checks out, but Theorem 5.1 overclaims for multi-valued A and the supporting proofs have warts that need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01065 v1 pith:P5LZXP4X submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

Zhiqun Zuo , Tian Xie , Xuwei Tan , Xueru Zhang , Mohammad Mahdi Khalili This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ML
keywords counterfactualfairnesslookaheadstrategicclassificationcausaldownstreameffectsfuturestatuspath-dependent
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 argues that counterfactual fairness, which equalizes the prediction an individual receives, does not guarantee fairness in what happens to that individual afterward, because people adapt strategically to the model. It introduces lookahead counterfactual fairness (LCF), which requires the individual's future status $Y'$ to have the same distribution in the factual and counterfactual worlds. The main constructive result is Theorem 5.1: under a linear causal model and a gradient-ascent response $U' = U + \eta \nabla_U \hat{Y}$, the predictor $g(\check{Y},U) = p_1 \check{Y}^2 + p_2 \check{Y} + p_3 + h(U)$ with $p_1 = 1/(2\eta(\|w \odot \alpha\|_2^2 + \gamma^2))$ satisfies LCF exactly. If correct, this is the first algorithm that trains for fairness of the downstream status rather than of the decision itself, and it comes with a relaxed version that trades some fairness for accuracy. The paper also extends the construction to path-dependent unfairness and to a class of nonlinear bijective causal models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the predictor $g(\check{Y},U) = p_1 \check{Y}^2 + p_2 \check{Y} + p_3 + h(U)$, a quadratic in the counterfactual label $\check{Y}$ plus an arbitrary function of the exogenous variables. Its derivative with respect to $\check{Y}$ is $2p_1 \check{Y} + p_2$, so the response-induced change in future status, which is proportional to $\eta(\|w \odot \alpha\|_2^2 + \gamma^2)(\partial g/\partial y - \partial g/\partial \check{y})$, cancels the original gap $\check{y} - y$ exactly when $2p_1 = 1/(\eta(\|w \odot \alpha\|_2^2 + \gamma^2))$. The counterfactual random variable $\check{Y} = Y_{A \leftarrow \check{a}}(U)$, obtained by abduction--action--prediction, carries the counterfactual information, and the response model $U' = U + \eta \nabla_U \hat{Y}$ is the strategic adaptation that would otherwise create the downstream disparity.

What would settle it

Estimate the causal parameters and the response step size $\eta$ from data, deploy the Algorithm 1 predictor with $p_1 = T/2$ on held-out subjects, and compute the average future causal effect (AFCE). The theorem predicts AFCE = 0; any held-out AFCE that is statistically nonzero, for example outside the sampling noise of the paper's synthetic experiment, would falsify the claim, as would a version of the simulation with heterogeneous individual step sizes $\eta_i$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LCF is achievable in closed form. In the linear causal model $X = \alpha \odot U_X + \beta A$, $Y = w^T X + \gamma U_Y$, with individuals responding by $U'_i = U_i + \eta \nabla_{U_i} \hat{Y}$, the predictor $g(\check{Y},U) = p_1 \check{Y}^2 + p_2 \check{Y} + p_3 + h(U)$, where $\check{Y}$ is the counterfactual random variable for $Y$, satisfies LCF when $p_1 = T/2$ with $T = 1/(\eta(\|w \odot \alpha\|_2^2 + \gamma^2))$; $p_2$, $p_3$, and $h$ are free to be trained. The mechanism is a cancellation: the future-status difference becomes $|\check{y}' - y'| = |\check{y} - y + (1/T)(\partial g/\partial y - \partial g/\partial \check{y})|$, and with $\partial g/\partial y = T y$ the difference is exactly zero for every posterior draw of $U$, so the factual and counterfactual future statuses are equalized. With $p_1 \in (0,T)$, LCF relaxes to the guarantee that the factual--counterfactual gap strictly shrinks. The paper further proves an analogous path-dependent version and a relaxed version for certain nonlinear bijective causal models.

Load-bearing premise

The exact guarantee depends on every individual responding with the same known gradient-ascent step size $\eta$ in the exogenous-variable space and on the structural equations being exactly the linear form in Theorem 5.1 with known parameters; if responses vary, act on observed features instead, or the causal functions are nonlinear, LCF is no longer guaranteed, and the paper's own Theorem 4.1 shows a counterfactually fair predictor can then leave the future-status gap unchanged or worse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 5.1 holds, an organization that knows the linear causal model and the response step size $\eta$ can train a predictor achieving an average future causal effect of zero on future status, as the synthetic and law-school experiments illustrate.
  • The free parameters $p_2$, $p_3$, and $h$ can be fit to data, so LCF is compatible with optimizing prediction accuracy; in the synthetic experiment the LCF predictor reaches an MSE close to the unfair baseline while the counterfactual-fair baseline alone has much larger MSE.
  • With $p_1 \in (0,T)$, the same architecture provides a tunable accuracy--fairness trade-off: smaller $p_1$ gives better MSE and weaker fairness, while $p_1 \to T$ gives the full LCF guarantee.
  • Theorem 6.1 extends the construction to path-dependent LCF, allowing only specified unfair causal paths to be equalized, and Theorem 5.3 transfers the relaxed guarantee to a class of nonlinear bijective causal models with monotone concave link functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The exact cancellation depends on a single known $\eta$ shared by all individuals; if response step sizes vary, the theorem suggests a robustified predictor would need to estimate or bound $\eta$, and the relaxed version might survive under such bounds.
  • Inference: The same quadratic-in-counterfactual construction could be applied to other dynamic fairness targets, such as equalizing future qualification trajectories over multiple rounds, by iterating the response update and re-deriving the tuning constant.
  • Inference: If individuals instead manipulate observed features $X$ directly rather than the exogenous variables $U$, the gradient-ascent model changes and the specific $p_1$ formula would need a different derivation; the paper's own Theorem 4.1 already warns that a counterfactually fair predictor can leave the future-status gap unchanged or worse in such settings.
  • Inference: A testable extension is to measure $\eta$ from data, for example by observing feature changes after a deployed predictor, and to check whether the AFCE-minimizing $p_1$ tracks the theoretical value across different populations.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces lookahead counterfactual fairness (LCF), a fairness notion requiring that an individual's future status Y' (after the individual strategically responds to an ML prediction Ŷ) has the same distribution in the factual and counterfactual worlds. Under a linear structural causal model X = α⊙U_X + βA, Y = w^T X + γU_Y and a gradient-ascent response U' = U + η∇_U Ŷ, the paper's central result (Theorem 5.1) constructs a predictor g(Ȳ,U) = p1 Ȳ^2 + p2 Ȳ + p3 + h(U), with p1 = 1/(2η(||w⊙α||_2^2 + γ^2)), which it claims satisfies perfect LCF. The paper also proposes Relaxed LCF (Definition 5.2) with corresponding constructions (Theorems 5.2, 5.3, 5.4), a path-dependent extension (Section 6), and experiments on synthetic and real data showing that the proposed predictor reduces the average future causal effect while maintaining competitive MSE.

Significance. The notion of evaluating counterfactual fairness on downstream status after strategic response is a meaningful and relatively unexplored problem, and the paper provides a constructive, closed-form predictor for a tractable linear model, together with a useful negative result (Theorem 4.1) showing that standard CF predictors can violate LCF. The paper also ships code and validates the method empirically on synthetic and real data. However, the main theorem's claim of perfect LCF is too strong as stated, and a key proof in the appendix contains a sign error; these issues do not destroy the core idea but require a revision to make the scope and proofs precise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.1; Appendix A.1 and A.2] Theorem 5.1 is stated for arbitrary A, but the proof only establishes the cancellation for the single counterfactual group ˇa used to define ˇY. Definition 4.1 requires the equality for every pair (a, ˇa). For a second counterfactual group ˇa2, the same derivation gives ˇy2' - y' = w^T β (ˇa2 - ˇa1), which is generally nonzero. Thus the theorem is false as stated when |A| > 2. Appendix A.2 repairs the non-binary case only for Relaxed LCF through an averaging construction, not for the perfect-LCF claim. The paper should either explicitly restrict Theorem 5.1 to binary A or provide a multi-valued construction; the experiments, which use binary A, are unaffected but the central claim needs a scope correction.
  2. [Appendix A.1, proof of Theorem 5.2] The proof states that for a strictly convex g, (ˇy - y)(∂g(y)/∂y - ∂g(ˇy)/∂ˇy) > 0. This sign is wrong: for a strictly convex function the derivative is increasing, so the inequality is < 0 when ˇy ≠ y. The main-text proof sketch has the correct sign. The contraction argument in Theorem 5.2 would still work with the corrected sign, but the appendix proof must be fixed.
  3. [Section 5, Theorem 5.3; Appendix A.3] The proof of Theorem 5.3 is difficult to follow and contains apparent inconsistencies: in Case 1 the conclusion is written as |y' - ˇy'| < |y - y'| rather than |y - ˇy|, and the use of the M-Lipschitz condition in Case 3 is not fully justified in the transition from the bound on |ϕ3 - ϕ4| to the final comparison. Since this theorem is a secondary result, it is less critical than the Theorem 5.1 issue, but the proof should be made rigorous and self-consistent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.1 vs. Appendix A.1] The symbol T is defined inconsistently: Theorem 5.1 sets T := 1/(η(||w⊙α||_2^2 + γ^2)), while Appendix A.1 sets T = η(||w⊙α||_2^2 + γ^2). This makes the proof harder to check and should be unified.
  2. [Appendix A.1, proof of Theorem 5.1] The response is written as u'_X = u_X + ∇u_X g, with the step size η omitted; Eq. (13) then reintroduces η. Add the missing η in the response definition for consistency.
  3. [Appendix A.1, proof of Corollary 5.1] The line "|y' - ˇy'| = |ˇy - y + (2/T)p1(y - ˇy)| = 0" should have a strict inequality "< |ˇy - y|" rather than equality to zero; as written it incorrectly suggests perfect cancellation for any p1 ∈ (0, T).
  4. [Appendix D, Table 4] The reported MSE for the proposed method (5.298 ± 1.704) is substantially worse than the baselines (UF: 0.012, CF: 0.329); the text says the method "achieves a large improvement in LCF" but does not comment on this accuracy cost, which should be discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.1 is a constructive algebraic derivation, and the only self-reference is that the reported AFCE is evaluated under the same SCM used to derive p1.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 5.1 starts from the linear SCM in Eq. 7 and the gradient response in Eq. 5, then derives a sufficient condition on the predictor g(Ȳ,U)=p1 Ȳ²+p2 Ȳ+p3+h(U) with p1=1/(2η(||w⊙α||²+γ²)). The proof in Appendix A.1 shows that Eq. 17 reduces |y'−ȳ'| to |ȳ−y+η(||w⊙α||²+γ²)(∂g(y,u)/∂y−∂g(ȳ,u)/∂ȳ)|, and substituting the chosen p1 makes this zero identically. This is a constructive cancellation, not an appeal to LCF as an assumption, and p1 is computed from model parameters rather than fitted to AFCE. The free parameters p2, p3, h are trained only to minimize MSE in Algorithm 1, so no fitted quantity is relabeled as a fairness prediction. Background notions such as counterfactual fairness and strategic response are cited from external work (Kusner et al. 2017; Rosenfeld et al. 2020; Hardt et al. 2016a), and no load-bearing claim rests on a same-author citation. The experiments are the only mildly self-referential part: AFCE is evaluated on the same linear SCM and response model used to derive p1, so for p1=T/2 the reported AFCE≈0 is an immediate consequence of Eq. 17 rather than an independent confirmation; this reduces the evidential weight of the experiments but does not make the derivation circular. A separate rigor gap, unrelated to circularity, is that Theorem 5.1 is stated for all ˇa∈A while the proof and Appendix A.2 establish the cancellation only for a single ˇa, with the multi-valued repair in A.2 addressing Relaxed LCF rather than perfect LCF; this is a correctness concern, not a circular one.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed response mechanism and the linear causal model; neither is empirically verified beyond the paper's own simulations. The trained parameters p2,p3,θ do not affect the fairness guarantee. No new physical or ontological entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • response step size η = η=10 in the reported experiments
    Controls the magnitude of strategic feature change; chosen by the user, not learned from data. The LCF guarantee depends on knowing this value exactly.
  • trained parameters p2, p3, θ (h's parameters) = Learned on training data to minimize MSE
    They affect prediction accuracy but not the fairness guarantee; still they are parameters fit to data.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The individual response is exactly U'_i = U_i + η∇_{U_i}Ŷ for all i and with a known, common η (Eq. 5).
    This is a modeling choice about human behavior, not derived from first principles; it is load-bearing for all theorems.
  • domain assumption The causal model is linear additive: X = α⊙U_X + βA, Y = w^TX + γU_Y with invertible structural equations (Eq. 7).
    Used in Theorems 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and the path-dependent extension; real-world SCMs are unlikely to be exactly linear.
  • domain assumption The conditional distribution P(U|X=x,A=a) is known or can be estimated consistently, and the counterfactual Ȳ is computable from the SCM.
    Needed to implement and evaluate the predictor; errors in SCM estimation will break the fairness guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper For Theorem 5.3, f̃ is monotonic, strictly concave, and Γ(s)=f̃(s)f̃'(s) is non-negative and M-Lipschitz.
    These conditions are tailored to make the proof work; they restrict applicability further.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lookahead Counterfactual Fairness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5LZXP4X

@misc{pith2026241201065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lookahead Counterfactual Fairness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5LZXP4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01065}
}
read the original abstract

As machine learning (ML) algorithms are used in applications that involve humans, concerns have arisen that these algorithms may be biased against certain social groups. \textit{Counterfactual fairness} (CF) is a fairness notion proposed in Kusner et al. (2017) that measures the unfairness of ML predictions; it requires that the prediction perceived by an individual in the real world has the same marginal distribution as it would be in a counterfactual world, in which the individual belongs to a different group. Although CF ensures fair ML predictions, it fails to consider the downstream effects of ML predictions on individuals. Since humans are strategic and often adapt their behaviors in response to the ML system, predictions that satisfy CF may not lead to a fair future outcome for the individuals. In this paper, we introduce \textit{lookahead counterfactual fairness} (LCF), a fairness notion accounting for the downstream effects of ML models which requires the individual \textit{future status} to be counterfactually fair. We theoretically identify conditions under which LCF can be satisfied and propose an algorithm based on the theorems. We also extend the concept to path-dependent fairness. Experiments on both synthetic and real data validate the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Causal graph in Example 4.1. We consider the fairness over the individual’s future outcome Y ′ . Given struc￾tural causal model M = (U, V, F), individual response r, and data (A, X, Y ), we define lookahead counterfactual fairness below. Definition 4.1. We say an ML model satisfies lookahead counterfactual fairness (LCF) under a response r if the following holds ∀a, aˇ ∈ A, X ∈ X , y ∈ Y: Pr (Y ′ A←a (U) = y|X = x, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A causal graph and individual responses with two features X1, X2. The black arrows represent the connections de￾scribed in structural functions. The red ar￾rows represent the response process. The green dash arrows are the potential connec￾tion to prediction Yˆ . Our goal is to train an ML model under LCF constraint. Before presenting our method, we first define the notion of counter￾factual random variables. Defini… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Causal model for the Law School Dataset. We further measure the performance of our proposed method using the Law School Admission Dataset Wightman (1998). In this experiment, the objective is to forecast the first-year average grades (FYA) of students in law school using their undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores. Dataset. The dataset consists of 21,791 records. Each record is character￾ized by 4 attributes: Sex (S), R… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Density plot for Y ′ and Yˇ ′ in synthetic data. For a chosen data point, we sampled a batch of U under the conditional distribution of it and plot the distribution of Y ′ and Yˇ ′ . Causal Model. We adopt the causal model as presented in Kusner et al. (2017), which ca…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density plot for F ′ and Fˇ′ in law school data. For a chosen data point, we sampled K from the conditional distribution of K and plot the distribution of F ′ and Fˇ′ . 8 Conclusion This work studied the impact of ML decisions on individuals’ future status using a coun…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/altruistdelhite04/loan-prediction-problem-dataset

    L oan P rediction P roblem D ataset --- kaggle.com. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/altruistdelhite04/loan-prediction-problem-dataset. [Accessed 20-10-2024]

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Counterfactual fairness in synthetic data generation

    Mahed Abroshan, Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, and Andrew Elliott. Counterfactual fairness in synthetic data generation. In NeurIPS Workshop on Synthetic Data for Empowering ML Research, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Imposing fairness constraints in synthetic data generation

    Mahed Abroshan, Andrew Elliott, and Mohammad Mahdi Khalili. Imposing fairness constraints in synthetic data generation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 2269--2277. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Causal context connects counterfactual fairness to robust prediction and group fairness

    Jacy Anthis and Victor Veitch. Causal context connects counterfactual fairness to robust prediction and group fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Information discrepancy in strategic learning

    Yahav Bechavod, Chara Podimata, Steven Wu, and Juba Ziani. Information discrepancy in strategic learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1691--1715, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Estimating and penalizing induced preference shifts in recommender systems

    Micah D Carroll, Anca Dragan, Stuart Russell, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Estimating and penalizing induced preference shifts in recommender systems. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 2686--2708. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Path-specific counterfactual fairness

    Silvia Chiappa. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pp.\ 7801--7808, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Images

    Roxana Daneshjou, Kailas Vodrahalli, Weixin Liang, Roberto A Novoa, Melissa Jenkins, Veronica Rotemberg, Justin Ko, Susan M Swetter, Elizabeth E Bailey, Olivier Gevaert, et al. Disparities in dermatology ai: Assessments using diverse clinical images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08006, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Amazon scraps secret ai recruiting tool that showed bias against women

    Jeffrey Dastin. Amazon scraps secret ai recruiting tool that showed bias against women. http://reut.rs/2MXzkly, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Transport-based counterfactual models

    Lucas De Lara, Alberto Gonz \'a lez-Sanz, Nicholas Asher, Laurent Risser, and Jean-Michel Loubes. Transport-based counterfactual models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 0 (136): 0 1--59, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Preference dynamics under personalized recommendations

    Sarah Dean and Jamie Morgenstern. Preference dynamics under personalized recommendations. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp.\ 795--816, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Online certification of preference-based fairness for personalized recommender systems

    Virginie Do, Sam Corbett-Davies, Jamal Atif, and Nicolas Usunier. Online certification of preference-based fairness for personalized recommender systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.\ 6532--6540, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Achieving counterfactual fairness with imperfect structural causal model

    Tri Dung Duong, Qian Li, and Guandong Xu. Achieving counterfactual fairness with imperfect structural causal model. Expert Systems with Applications, 240: 0 122411, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Causal adversarial perturbations for individual fairness and robustness in heterogeneous data spaces

    Ahmad-Reza Ehyaei, Kiarash Mohammadi, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Samira Samadi, and Golnoosh Farnadi. Causal adversarial perturbations for individual fairness and robustness in heterogeneous data spaces. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Towards long-term fairness in recommendation

    Yingqiang Ge, Shuchang Liu, Ruoyuan Gao, Yikun Xian, Yunqi Li, Xiangyu Zhao, Changhua Pei, Fei Sun, Junfeng Ge, Wenwu Ou, et al. Towards long-term fairness in recommendation. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pp.\ 445--453, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Practical markov chain monte carlo

    Charles J Geyer. Practical markov chain monte carlo. Statistical science, pp.\ 473--483, 1992

    1992

  9. [17]

    Causal inference in statistics: A primer

    Madelyn Glymour, Judea Pearl, and Nicholas P Jewell. Causal inference in statistics: A primer. John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Precof: counterfactual explanations for fairness

    Sofie Goethals, David Martens, and Toon Calders. Precof: counterfactual explanations for fairness. Machine Learning, 113 0 (5): 0 3111--3142, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Strategic classification

    Moritz Hardt, Nimrod Megiddo, Christos Papadimitriou, and Mary Wootters. Strategic classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on innovations in theoretical computer science, pp.\ 111--122, 2016 a

    2016

  12. [20]

    Equality of opportunity in supervised learning

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29: 0 3315--3323, 2016 b

    2016

  13. [21]

    Runtime monitoring of dynamic fairness properties

    Thomas Henzinger, Mahyar Karimi, Konstantin Kueffner, and Kaushik Mallik. Runtime monitoring of dynamic fairness properties. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp.\ 604--614, 2023 a

    2023

  14. [22]

    Monitoring algorithmic fairness

    Thomas A Henzinger, Mahyar Karimi, Konstantin Kueffner, and Kaushik Mallik. Monitoring algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15979, 2023 b

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Achieving long-term fairness in sequential decision making

    Yaowei Hu and Lu Zhang. Achieving long-term fairness in sequential decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.\ 9549--9557, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Fairness in algorithmic decision making: An excursion through the lens of causality

    Aria Khademi, Sanghack Lee, David Foley, and Vasant Honavar. Fairness in algorithmic decision making: An excursion through the lens of causality. In The World Wide Web Conference, pp.\ 2907--2914, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Fair sequential selection using supervised learning models

    Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, Xueru Zhang, and Mahed Abroshan. Fair sequential selection using supervised learning models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 28144--28155, 2021 a

    2021

  18. [26]

    Improving fairness and privacy in selection problems

    Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, Xueru Zhang, Mahed Abroshan, and Somayeh Sojoudi. Improving fairness and privacy in selection problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pp.\ 8092--8100, 2021 b

    2021

  19. [27]

    Loss balancing for fair supervised learning

    Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, Xueru Zhang, and Mahed Abroshan. Loss balancing for fair supervised learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 16271--16290. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning

    Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Counterfactual fairness

    Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Delayed impact of fair machine learning

    Lydia T Liu, Sarah Dean, Esther Rolf, Max Simchowitz, and Moritz Hardt. Delayed impact of fair machine learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 3150--3158. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    The disparate equilibria of algorithmic decision making when individuals invest rationally

    Lydia T Liu, Ashia Wilson, Nika Haghtalab, Adam Tauman Kalai, Christian Borgs, and Jennifer Chayes. The disparate equilibria of algorithmic decision making when individuals invest rationally. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Learning for counterfactual fairness from observational data

    Jing Ma, Ruocheng Guo, Aidong Zhang, and Jundong Li. Learning for counterfactual fairness from observational data. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.\ 1620--1630, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sequential conditional transport on probabilistic graphs for interpretable counterfactual fairness

    Agathe Fernandes Machado, Arthur Charpentier, and Ewen Gallic. Sequential conditional transport on probabilistic graphs for interpretable counterfactual fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03425, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Strategic classification is causal modeling in disguise

    John Miller, Smitha Milli, and Moritz Hardt. Strategic classification is causal modeling in disguise. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 6917--6926. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fair inference on outcomes

    Razieh Nabi and Ilya Shpitser. Fair inference on outcomes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Counterfactual identifiability of bijective causal models

    Arash Nasr-Esfahany, Mohammad Alizadeh, and Devavrat Shah. Counterfactual identifiability of bijective causal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02228, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Models, reasoning and inference

    Judea Pearl et al. Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversityPress, 19 0 (2), 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    The matrix reloaded: Towards counterfactual group fairness in machine learning

    Mariana Pinto, Andre V Carreiro, Pedro Madeira, Alberto Lopez, and Hugo Gamboa. The matrix reloaded: Towards counterfactual group fairness in machine learning. Journal of Data-centric Machine Learning Research, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Aligning (medical) llms for (counterfactual) fairness

    Raphael Poulain, Hamed Fayyaz, and Rahmatollah Beheshti. Aligning (medical) llms for (counterfactual) fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12055, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    From predictions to decisions: Using lookahead regularization

    Nir Rosenfeld, Anna Hilgard, Sai Srivatsa Ravindranath, and David C Parkes. From predictions to decisions: Using lookahead regularization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 4115--4126, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Average user-side counterfactual fairness for collaborative filtering

    Pengyang Shao, Le Wu, Kun Zhang, Defu Lian, Richang Hong, Yong Li, and Meng Wang. Average user-side counterfactual fairness for collaborative filtering. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 42 0 (5): 0 1--26, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Causal strategic linear regression

    Yonadav Shavit, Benjamin Edelman, and Brian Axelrod. Causal strategic linear regression. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 8676--8686. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Tier balancing: Towards dynamic fairness over underlying causal factors

    Zeyu Tang, Yatong Chen, Yang Liu, and Kun Zhang. Tier balancing: Towards dynamic fairness over underlying causal factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08987, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Why machine learning may lead to unfairness: Evidence from risk assessment for juvenile justice in catalonia

    Song \"u l Tolan, Marius Miron, Emilia G \'o mez, and Carlos Castillo. Why machine learning may lead to unfairness: Evidence from risk assessment for juvenile justice in catalonia. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, p...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Advancing graph counterfactual fairness through fair representation learning

    Zichong Wang, Zhibo Chu, Ronald Blanco, Zhong Chen, Shu-Ching Chen, and Wenbin Zhang. Advancing graph counterfactual fairness through fair representation learning. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pp.\ 40--58. Springer, 2024 a

    2024

  38. [46]

    Toward fair graph neural networks via real counterfactual samples

    Zichong Wang, Meikang Qiu, Min Chen, Malek Ben Salem, Xin Yao, and Wenbin Zhang. Toward fair graph neural networks via real counterfactual samples. Knowledge and Information Systems, 66 0 (11): 0 6617--6641, 2024 b

    2024

  39. [47]

    Lsac national longitudinal bar passage study

    Linda F Wightman. Lsac national longitudinal bar passage study. lsac research report series. 1998

    1998

  40. [48]

    Counterfactual fairness: Unidentification, bound and algorithm

    Yongkai Wu, Lu Zhang, and Xintao Wu. Counterfactual fairness: Unidentification, bound and algorithm. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Mirrorfair: Fixing fairness bugs in machine learning software via counterfactual predictions

    Ying Xiao, Jie M Zhang, Yepang Liu, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, Sicen Liu, and Dingyuan Xue. Mirrorfair: Fixing fairness bugs in machine learning software via counterfactual predictions. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering, 1 0 (FSE): 0 2121--2143, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Automating data annotation under strategic human agents: Risks and potential solutions

    Tian Xie and Xueru Zhang. Automating data annotation under strategic human agents: Risks and potential solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08027, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Non-linear welfare-aware strategic learning

    Tian Xie and Xueru Zhang. Non-linear welfare-aware strategic learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01810, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Learning under imitative strategic behavior with unforeseeable outcomes

    Tian Xie, Zhiqun Zuo, Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, and Xueru Zhang. Learning under imitative strategic behavior with unforeseeable outcomes. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=82bNZGMNZa

    2024

  45. [53]

    Achieving differential privacy and fairness in logistic regression

    Depeng Xu, Shuhan Yuan, and Xintao Wu. Achieving differential privacy and fairness in logistic regression. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, pp.\ 594--599, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, pp.\ 1171-...

    2017

  47. [55]

    Group retention when using machine learning in sequential decision making: the interplay between user dynamics and fairness

    Xueru Zhang, Mohammadmahdi Khaliligarekani, Cem Tekin, et al. Group retention when using machine learning in sequential decision making: the interplay between user dynamics and fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32: 0 15269--15278, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    How do fair decisions fare in long-term qualification? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 18457--18469, 2020

    Xueru Zhang, Ruibo Tu, Yang Liu, Mingyan Liu, Hedvig Kjellstrom, Kun Zhang, and Cheng Zhang. How do fair decisions fare in long-term qualification? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 18457--18469, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Fairness interventions as ( D is) I ncentives for strategic manipulation

    Xueru Zhang, Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, Kun Jin, Parinaz Naghizadeh, and Mingyan Liu. Fairness interventions as ( D is) I ncentives for strategic manipulation. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 26239--26264, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Improving practical counterfactual fairness with limited causal knowledge

    Zeyu Zhou, Ruqi Bai, and David I Inouye. Improving practical counterfactual fairness with limited causal knowledge. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Navigating and Addressing Data Problems for Foundation Models, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Counterfactual fairness with partially known causal graph

    Aoqi Zuo, Susan Wei, Tongliang Liu, Bo Han, Kun Zhang, and Mingming Gong. Counterfactual fairness with partially known causal graph. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 1238--1252, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Counterfactually fair representation

    Zhiqun Zuo, Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, and Xueru Zhang. Counterfactually fair representation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 12124--12140, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    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 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.