pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11889 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

Incentivizing Truthfulness and Collaborative Fairness in Bayesian Learning

Rachael Hwee Ling Sim , Jue Fan , Xiao Tian , Xinyi Xu , Patrick Jaillet , Bryan Kian Hsiang Low
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords collaborative machine learningdata valuationtruthfulnesscollaborative fairnessBayesian modelssemivaluesShapley valuereward mechanism
0
0 comments X

The pith

A mechanism pairing semivalues with a validation set unknown to sources ensures both fairness and truthfulness at equilibrium in Bayesian collaborative learning.

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

The paper addresses manipulation in collaborative machine learning, where sources can submit duplicated or noisy data to inflate their rewards under standard valuation methods. It constructs a mechanism that uses semivalues such as the Shapley value to allocate rewards fairly according to contributions while tying the valuation itself to performance on a validation set that sources cannot access. Under an added condition on how sources maximize expected coalition values, truthful submission of data that reflects genuine knowledge becomes the equilibrium strategy that maximizes individual rewards. Readers care because this setup allows training of higher-quality models without strategic distortion from participants. The paper also examines how fairness and truthfulness conditions can be relaxed when reward budgets are limited or no validation set is available.

Core claim

The paper presents the first mechanism that provably ensures collaborative fairness and incentivizes truthfulness at equilibrium for Bayesian models. It achieves this by combining semivalues, which guarantee fair reward allocation based on data contributions, with a truthful data valuation function that depends on a validation set unknown to the sources. An additional condition is shown to hold under which each source maximizes its expected data values across coalitions and semivalues precisely by submitting a dataset that captures its true knowledge.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that integrates semivalues for fair allocation with a data valuation function based on performance against a validation set kept secret from all sources.

If this is right

  • Truthful data submission becomes the unique equilibrium strategy for reward maximization.
  • Rewards are allocated strictly according to true marginal contributions rather than manipulated submissions.
  • Collaborative models reach higher test accuracy because training data reflects genuine source knowledge.
  • When budgets are limited the mechanism admits relaxed fairness notions while preserving the truthfulness incentive.
  • Without a validation set the framework can fall back to budget-constrained or approximate fairness conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same combination of hidden validation and semivalues might stabilize cooperation in non-Bayesian settings if the valuation function is replaced by an appropriate surrogate.
  • Running the mechanism on datasets where sources have known conflicting interests would provide a direct test of whether the equilibrium remains at truthful submission.
  • If validation data cannot be kept secret, cross-validation among participating sources could serve as a practical proxy worth formal analysis.

Load-bearing premise

A validation set unknown to the sources exists and can measure true knowledge, and sources choose datasets to maximize their expected semivalue rewards.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which sources submit duplicated or noisy versions of their data yet receive strictly higher expected rewards under the mechanism than when they submit their true datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11889 by Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, Jue Fan, Patrick Jaillet, Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Xiao Tian, Xinyi Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Graphs of value of source 0 (with 95% CI shaded across 20 sets) under its different strategies when evaluated on validation sets of (a-c) increasing sizes and (d-f) with increasing noise added to the outputs for various datasets. T S N D I P Strategy 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Shapley Value Source 0 1 2 T S N D I P Strategy 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Shapley Value T S N D I P Strategy 1.25 1.30 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Graphs of all sources’ Shapley values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)–(c). sets result in smaller variance in the data value. Next, we empirically evaluate if truthfulness is still incen￾tivized under Bayesian model misspecifications. In Fig. 1d-f, we plot the value v(D0) of source 0 with increasing levels of noise a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graphs of all sources’ reward values r˘i (mean across 10 training and validation splits plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)–(c). 6.2. Truthful Semivalues In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The goal is to determine fair and truthful reward values rj for each source j ∈ N. The data valuation function (DVF, denoted by a circle) evaluates the data value of a source j or coalition C (within). A reward rj is unfair if it depends solely on j’s data and not on others’, and untruthful if j has full information (eye) to optimize rj . Definitions of (F) collaborative fairness and (T) truthfulness are i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: When there is no validation set, the reward for each source are computed as follows to ensure truthfulness and modified fairness. (i ⪰ j) =⇒ (ri ≥ rj ), and (ii) for strict desirability, (i ⪰ j) ∧ (j ⪰̸ i) =⇒ (ri > rj ). Notably, fairness goes beyond considering whether v(Di) = v(Dj ) as source i may still contribute more to improving model performance (e.g., in v(DN )) than j if its data is less redundant… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graphs of value of source 0 (with 95% CI shaded across 20 sets) under its different strategies when evaluated on validation set of increasing sizes for various datasets (a)-(d). Increasing noise in p(T |θ). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graphs of value of source 0 (with 95% CI shaded across 20 sets) under its different strategies when evaluated on validation set with increasing levels of noise added to the outputs for various datasets (a)-(d). Different validation set input distributions. We sort the data in the validation set using a random permutation of columns in X∗ and evaluate source 0’s strategies on the first k fraction of the sor… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Graphs of value of source 0 (with 95% CI shaded across 20 sets) under its different strategies when evaluated on validation set of increasing sizes for various datasets (a)-(d). As the validation set is sorted, a smaller fraction corresponds to a more different input distributions. 0.0 0.1 0.2 α −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 v ( D 0 ) Strategy T S N D I P 0.0 0.5 1.0 β −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 v ( D 0 ) St… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graphs of value of source 0 (with 95% CI shaded across 20 sets) under its different strategies when evaluated on (a)-(b) validation sets generated with modified parameters, (c) a prior that has seen |Dp| data for the (GP-FR) dataset, (d) source 1 adds more noise, and (e) when source 0 reports different noise in D0. Model misspecification of p(T |θ) in A2. We consider generating the mediator’s validation se… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Graphs of all sources’ Shapley values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Graphs of all sources’ Beta(16, 1) Shapley values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). T S N D I P Strategy 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 Beta Shapley Value Source 0 1 2 (a) (GP-FR) T S N D I P Strategy 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 Beta Shapley Value (b) (LO-HE) T S N D I P Strategy 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 Beta Sh… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Graphs of all sources’ Beta(4, 1) Shapley values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Graphs of all sources’ individual value, corresponding to (Zheng et al., 2024) (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). Larger weights for smaller coalitions. We consider using the Beta(16, 1) and Beta(4, 1) Shapley value (Kwon & Zou, 2021) and the individual value to place more weights on smaller coalitions. From Figs.… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Graphs of all sources’ Beta Shapley or individual values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies and source 1 adds noise to y1 in the (NN-CY) experiment. From (a) to (d), the weight on smaller coalitions increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Graphs of all sources’ Shapley values (mean across 20 validation sets plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). Source 1 adds noise to y1 in its dataset D1. by strategy T across all datasets. When source 1’s dataset is very noisy (e.g., 10% with the wrong output y in (GP-FR), 6% relabeled in (LO-BL) source 0), source 0 duplicating its dataset (strategy… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Graphs of all sources’ reward values r`i = P j∈N ϕi[ν Tj D ] (mean across 10 75% − 25% training and validation splits plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e) and other sources are truthful. Source i is evaluated on its own validation set. Sources are not evaluated on their own validation set. In Figs. 17 and 18, we decide the reward value r˘i = P j∈N\… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Graphs of all sources’ reward values r˘i (mean across 10 training and validation splits plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e). G. Limitations In this section, we thoroughly discuss the limitations of our work. Some of these limitations arise from assumptions needed for theoretical guarantees and it may be non-trivial for future work to address and r… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Graphs of all sources’ reward values r˘i = P j∈N\{i} ϕi[ν Tj D ] (mean across 10 50% − 50% training and validation splits plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e) and other sources are truthful. Source i is not evaluated on its own validation set. this is because FL reward mechanisms often involve giving out model rewards which conflict with strict tru… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Graphs of all sources’ reward values r`i = P j∈N ϕi[ν Tj D ] (mean across 10 50% − 50% training and validation splits plotted as straight bars) when source 0 uses different strategies for various datasets (a)-(e) and other sources are truthful. Source i is evaluated on its own validation set. predictive performance. The analysis should be viewed as comprehensive instead of limited as other theoretical wor… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Collaborative machine learning involves training high-quality models using datasets from a number of sources. To incentivize sources to share data, existing data valuation methods fairly reward each source based on its data submitted as is. However, as these methods do not verify nor incentivize data truthfulness, the sources can manipulate their data (e.g., by submitting duplicated or noisy data) to artificially increase their valuations and rewards or prevent others from benefiting. This paper presents the first mechanism that provably ensures (F) collaborative fairness and incentivizes (T) truthfulness at equilibrium for Bayesian models. Our mechanism combines semivalues (e.g., Shapley value), which ensure fairness, and a truthful data valuation function (DVF) based on a validation set that is unknown to the sources. As semivalues are influenced by others' data, we introduce an additional condition to prove that a source can maximize its expected data values in coalitions and semivalues by submitting a dataset that captures its true knowledge. Additionally, we discuss the implications and suitable relaxations of (F) and (T) when the mediator has a limited budget for rewards or lacks a validation set. Our theoretical findings are validated on synthetic and real-world datasets.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce the first mechanism for collaborative Bayesian machine learning that simultaneously guarantees collaborative fairness (F) via semivalues such as the Shapley value and incentivizes truthfulness (T) at equilibrium. It combines semivalues for fair reward allocation with a truthful data valuation function (DVF) that relies on a validation set unknown to the data sources. An additional condition is introduced to prove that sources maximize expected coalition values and semivalue rewards by submitting datasets that capture their true knowledge rather than manipulating data (e.g., via duplication or noise). The paper also discusses relaxations of (F) and (T) under limited mediator budgets or absent validation sets, with theoretical results validated on synthetic and real-world datasets.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would represent a meaningful advance in incentivizing honest data sharing for collaborative ML, addressing a practical gap where existing valuation methods permit manipulation that inflates rewards or harms others. The integration of semivalues with an unknown validation set offers a clean theoretical separation between fairness and truthfulness, and the discussion of budget-limited relaxations broadens applicability. Experimental validation on both synthetic and real datasets provides initial evidence of practicality, though the strength depends on the unexamined additional condition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and theoretical analysis section] Abstract and the section introducing the additional condition: the truthfulness guarantee at equilibrium is asserted to hold via an 'additional condition' when semivalues depend on other agents' submissions, yet this condition is never explicitly formulated or stated. Without its precise statement, it is impossible to verify whether it holds for standard Bayesian setups (conjugate priors, non-i.i.d. likelihoods) or whether profitable deviations such as duplication remain possible.
  2. [Theoretical analysis] Proof of equilibrium properties (central claim of (T)): the argument that submitting a dataset capturing 'true knowledge' maximizes expected semivalue rewards relies on the unstated condition and the existence of an unknown validation set. No derivation shows that this condition is necessary or sufficient for Bayesian models, leaving the no-deviation claim unverified and load-bearing for the 'first provable mechanism' assertion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method section] The definition of the truthful data valuation function (DVF) should be given an explicit mathematical formulation (e.g., as an equation) immediately after its introduction rather than relying on descriptive text.
  2. [Experiments] Experimental figures lack sufficient detail in captions regarding the exact Bayesian model, prior choices, and how the unknown validation set is simulated, hindering reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to improve the explicitness and completeness of the theoretical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and theoretical analysis section] Abstract and the section introducing the additional condition: the truthfulness guarantee at equilibrium is asserted to hold via an 'additional condition' when semivalues depend on other agents' submissions, yet this condition is never explicitly formulated or stated. Without its precise statement, it is impossible to verify whether it holds for standard Bayesian setups (conjugate priors, non-i.i.d. likelihoods) or whether profitable deviations such as duplication remain possible.

    Authors: We agree that the additional condition was referenced but not stated with sufficient precision or formality. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit mathematical formulation of the condition immediately after its introduction, together with a short paragraph verifying its satisfaction under conjugate priors and non-i.i.d. likelihoods and confirming that duplication cannot increase expected semivalue rewards. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theoretical analysis] Proof of equilibrium properties (central claim of (T)): the argument that submitting a dataset capturing 'true knowledge' maximizes expected semivalue rewards relies on the unstated condition and the existence of an unknown validation set. No derivation shows that this condition is necessary or sufficient for Bayesian models, leaving the no-deviation claim unverified and load-bearing for the 'first provable mechanism' assertion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current proof sketch is too terse. The revised theoretical analysis section will contain a self-contained derivation establishing that the (now explicitly stated) condition is sufficient to guarantee that truthful submission is a dominant strategy for any Bayesian model whose posterior is well-defined; we will also note the cases in which the condition is necessary. This will directly support the central truthfulness claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; relies on external validation set and standard semivalue properties

full rationale

The derivation chain uses an external validation set unknown to sources to define the truthful DVF, combined with standard semivalue fairness properties. The additional condition is introduced explicitly to address inter-agent dependencies in semivalues and does not reduce the truthfulness result to a self-definition, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step equates the claimed equilibrium to its inputs by construction, and the mechanism remains falsifiable via the validation set. This yields a minor score for the presence of an unverified auxiliary assumption but no circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard properties of semivalues and the existence of an inaccessible validation set; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Semivalues (e.g., Shapley value) ensure collaborative fairness when applied to data contributions.
    Invoked to guarantee (F) fairness in the mechanism design.
  • domain assumption Sources are rational and maximize expected values over coalitions.
    Central to proving truthfulness at equilibrium.
invented entities (1)
  • Truthful data valuation function (DVF) based on unknown validation set no independent evidence
    purpose: To enforce truthfulness when combined with semivalues
    New component introduced to address manipulation not handled by prior valuation methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5532 in / 1220 out tokens · 48158 ms · 2026-05-13T05:48:46.042845+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

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    16104--16117

    Gradient driven rewards to guarantee fairness in collaborative machine learning , author=. Proc. NeurIPS , pages="16104--16117", year=

    work page

  2. [2]

    Collaborative Machine Learning with Incentive-Aware Model Rewards , author=. Proc. ICML

    work page

  3. [3]

    Incentives in private collaborative machine learning , author=. Proc

    work page

  4. [4]

    Mathematics of Operations Research , volume=

    Value theory without efficiency , author=. Mathematics of Operations Research , volume=. 1981 , publisher=

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    Truthful data acquisition via peer prediction , author=. Proc

    work page

  6. [6]

    and Xu, X

    Lyu, L. and Xu, X. and Wang, Q. and Yu, H. , booktitle=. Collaborative fairness in. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Data-free evaluation of user contributions in federated learning , author=. Proc. WiOpt , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Incentives for federated learning: a hypothesis elicitation approach , author=

    work page

  9. [9]

    Incentivizing Honesty among Competitors in Collaborative Learning and Optimization , author=

    work page

  10. [10]

    Truthful Dataset Valuation by Pointwise Mutual Information , author=

    work page

  11. [11]

    Peer truth serum: incentives for crowdsourcing measurements and opinions , author=

    work page

  12. [12]

    Validation free and replication robust volume-based data valuation , author=. Proc. NeurIPS , volume=

    work page

  13. [13]

    Replication Robust Payoff Allocation in Submodular Cooperative Games , year =

    Han, Dongge and Wooldridge, Michael and Rogers, Alex and Ohrimenko, Olga and Tschiatschek, Sebastian , journal =. Replication Robust Payoff Allocation in Submodular Cooperative Games , year =

    work page

  14. [14]

    Trade-off between Payoff and Model Rewards in

    Nguyen, Quoc Phong and Low, Bryan Kian Hsiang and Jaillet, Patrick , booktitle =. Trade-off between Payoff and Model Rewards in

    work page

  15. [15]

    Management Science , volume=

    Scoring Rules for Continuous Probability Distributions , author=. Management Science , volume=. 1976 , publisher=

    work page 1976

  16. [16]

    Nonparametric scoring rules , author=. Proc. AAAI , volume=

    work page

  17. [17]

    Game-theoretic mechanisms for eliciting accurate information , author=. Proc. IJCAI , year=

    work page

  18. [18]

    Federated Learning: Privacy and Incentive , pages=

    Budget-bounded incentives for federated learning , author=. Federated Learning: Privacy and Incentive , pages=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    and Zou, J

    Ghorbani, A. and Zou, J. , booktitle="Proc. Data. 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    and Dao, D

    Jia, R. and Dao, D. and Wang, B. and Hubis, F. A. and Hynes, N. and Gurel, N. M. and Li, B. and Zhang, C. and Song, D. and Spanos, C. , booktitle="Proc. Towards efficient data valuation based on the. 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation , volume=

    Surrogate scoring rules , author=. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Data-oob: Out-of-bag estimate as a simple and efficient data value , author=. Proc. ICML , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    ingredients

    Data Valuation in Machine Learning: “ingredients”, strategies, and open challenges , author=. Proc. IJCAI , pages = "5607--5614", year=

    work page

  24. [24]

    Kwon, Yongchan and Zou, James , booktitle =

    work page

  25. [25]

    ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , volume=

    Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications , author=. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , volume=

    work page

  26. [26]

    Sharing and Utilizing Health Data for

    work page

  27. [27]

    Incentivizing the sharing of healthcare data in the

    Panagopoulos, Andreas and Minssen, Timo and Sideri, Katerina and Yu, Helen and Compagnucci, Marcelo Corrales , journal=. Incentivizing the sharing of healthcare data in the. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    NVIDIA Technical Blog , author=

    Using federated learning to Bridge Data Silos in financial services , url=. NVIDIA Technical Blog , author=. 2022 , month=

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Incentive-Aware Federated Learning with Training-Time Model Rewards , author=. Proc. ICLR , year=

    work page

  31. [31]

    Faster Approximation of Probabilistic and Distributional Values via Least Squares , author=. Proc. ICLR , year=

    work page

  32. [32]

    Optimization , volume=

    Some properties for probabilistic and multinomial (probabilistic) values on cooperative games , author=. Optimization , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Logic, game theory and social choice , pages=

    Some theoretical reasons for using (regular) semivalues , author=. Logic, game theory and social choice , pages=. 1999 , publisher=

    work page 1999

  34. [34]

    H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker

    A Value for n -person Games , author=. Contributions to the Theory of Games , editor = "H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker", volume=

    work page

  35. [35]

    Cover and J

    T. Cover and J. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory

    work page

  36. [36]

    Hidden trigger backdoor attacks , author=. Proc. AAAI , volume=

    work page

  37. [37]

    2022 , publisher=

    Probabilistic Machine Learning: An Introduction , author=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Variational Learning of inducing variables in sparse

    Titsias, Michalis , booktitle=. Variational Learning of inducing variables in sparse

    work page

  39. [39]

    Aarti Singh and Danai Koutra , title =

    work page

  40. [40]

    2021 , publisher=

    Statistical inference , author=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    work page

  42. [42]

    IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine , volume=

    Hands-on Bayesian neural networks—A tutorial for deep learning users , author=. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=

    Deep kernel learning , author=. Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=. 2016 , organization=

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content, EC-11 , year=

    Incentives for answering hypothetical questions , author=. Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content, EC-11 , year=

    work page

  45. [45]

    Management Science , volume=

    Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method , author=. Management Science , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    Computational intelligence and neuroscience , volume=

    Prediction of heart disease using a combination of machine learning and deep learning , author=. Computational intelligence and neuroscience , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) , pages=

    MedMNIST Classification Decathlon: A Lightweight AutoML Benchmark for Medical Image Analysis , author=. IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) , pages=

    work page

  48. [48]

    Hoffman, Matthew D and Gelman, Andrew , journal=. The

    work page

  49. [49]

    2014 , howpublished =

    Tfekci, Pnar and Kaya, Heysem , title =. 2014 , howpublished =

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data , author=. Proc. AISTATS , pages=

    work page

  51. [51]

    Learning differentially private recurrent language models , author=. Proc. ICLR , year=

    work page

  52. [52]

    International Journal of Hybrid Intelligent Systems , pages=

    A framework for learning from distributed data using sufficient statistics and its application to learning decision trees , author=. International Journal of Hybrid Intelligent Systems , pages=. 2004 , publisher=

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    Fair yet Asymptotically Equal Collaborative Learning , author=. Proc. ICML , year=

    work page

  54. [54]

    Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro , author=

    work page

  55. [55]

    Approximating the shapley value without marginal contributions , author=. Proc. AAAI , volume=

    work page