Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

A Joint-Distribution Route to Fair Representations with Continuous Sensitive Attributes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that fair representation learning with a continuous sensitive attribute can be enforced by a single joint-dependence statistic, the Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC), which matches the conditional-integral…

desk verdict Core theory is sound and worth engaging, but the headline O(n^{-1/2}) efficiency gain rests on a spectral-tail condition the paper itself admits is vacuous for Gaussian kernels on continuous S. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10470 v1 pith:XD2CARPH submitted 2026-08-11 cs.LG stat.AP

Yijin Ni , Xiaoming Huo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.AP MSC 68T0562G0562G2046E22
keywords fairrepresentationlearningcontinuoussensitiveattributesHilbert–Schmidtindependencecriterionkernelmethodsdemographicparityintegralprobabilitymetricsspectralanalysisuniformconcentration
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 tries to show that fairness with a continuous sensitive attribute $S$ can be enforced without estimating the conditional law of the representation given each sensitive value. Its route is a single discrepancy between the joint law of $(Z,S)$ and the product of marginals, instantiated as HSIC. The paper proves a disintegration identity that ties this joint discrepancy to the conditional-integral functional used by generalized demographic parity and expectation-of-IPM criteria, and shows that the empirical HSIC regularizer concentrates uniformly at the $O(n^{-1/2})$ rate. A sympathetic reader would care because the conditional route requires nonparametric smoothing with the slower $O(n^{-2/5})$ rate, while the joint route is a closed-form $O(n^2)$ statistic that reaches the same target.

What carries the argument

The central object is HSIC as the squared MMD between the joint law of $(Z,S)$ and the product of its marginals in a tensor-product RKHS, estimated by the closed-form biased V-statistic $\widehat{\mathrm{HSIC}}_n = n^{-2}\operatorname{tr}(\widetilde{K}\widetilde{L})$. The argument is carried by three mechanisms: the disintegration identity that expresses the joint discrepancy as an $S$-average of conditional contrasts, the decomposable witness class condition under which that average equals the conditional-integral functional, and the spectral analysis of the sensitive-attribute kernel integral operator $T_S$ whose tail $\rho_m^2$ controls the gap between HSIC and the conditional MMD integral. The empirical counterpart replaces the operator spectrum with the eigenvalues of the centered sensitive Gram matrix.

What would settle it

A concrete check: generate paired samples where the representation depends on $S$ chiefly through high-frequency eigenfunctions of the sensitive kernel with small eigenvalues, compute both HSIC and the conditional MMD integral, and verify whether small HSIC implies small conditional MMD. If the two quantities diverge substantially on such data, the spectral-tail assumption behind Theorem 4.5 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the representation-level fairness target $Z \perp S$ can be measured by $\mathrm{HSIC}(Z,S)$, the squared maximum mean discrepancy between the joint law $P_{Z,S}$ and the product $P_Z \otimes P_S$, and that this quantity is equivalent to the conditional-integral functional $\mathbb{E}_S[d(P_{Z|S}, P_Z)]$ that existing continuous-sensitive criteria use. The paper establishes a disintegration identity (Theorem 3.2) rewriting the joint-vs-product IPM as an $S$-averaged conditional contrast, and shows that on decomposable witness classes this equals the conditional-integral IPM (Corollary 3.4). It then proves that HSIC is equivalent to the conditional MMD integral up to an explicit spectral tail of the sensitive-attribute kernel (Theorem 4.5), and that the empirical HSIC regularizer concentrates uniformly over the encoder class at rate $O(n^{-1/2})$ (Theorem 5.1). The resulting algorithm, FRHSIC, attains fairness–accuracy tradeoffs comparable to conditional-route baselines while training about 36 times faster per epoch at $n=20{,}000$.

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence between HSIC and the conditional MMD integral holds only up to a spectral tail of the sensitive-attribute kernel, and for Gaussian kernels on continuous $S$ the paper's Appendix H.3 notes that the population-level bound can become vacuous because the analogous constant collapses to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single HSIC penalty enforces the same representation-level independence target as GDP and EIPM, without constructing conditional laws at each sensitive value.
  • The empirical HSIC regularizer converges at the root-$n$ rate, so its statistical efficiency is better than the nonparametric $O(n^{-2/5})$ rate of conditional-route estimators.
  • Small HSIC controls the conditional MMD integral and the demographic-parity gap of RKHS heads, up to an explicit spectral tail and a spectral factor in the finite-sample bound.
  • As a minibatch regularizer, FRHSIC reaches fairness–accuracy tradeoffs comparable to the conditional-route baselines while reducing per-epoch training time by a large factor.
  • The framework extends to equal opportunity by restricting the statistic to the positive-outcome subset and to multiple continuous sensitive attributes through a product kernel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the spectral tail of the sensitive-attribute kernel does not decay quickly in practice, small HSIC may not guarantee small conditional MMD or GDP gap; this could be tested by measuring both quantities on real data across kernel bandwidths.
  • Editorial inference: the root-$n$ rate applies to estimating the joint dependence statistic itself, not directly to the fairness metric; practitioners should verify that the downstream GDP gap also improves at the claimed rate.
  • Editorial inference: the structural identity of Theorem 3.2 would extend to other joint dependence measures such as distance covariance, but those would not inherit the closed-form estimator or root-$n$ rate unless they are also V-statistics.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to replace the reference distribution $P_Z \otimes P_S$ with $P_Z \otimes \mathrm{Unif}(S)$ to enforce minority-protection fairness, a modeling choice the paper notes does not change the structural identity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to enforce fairness with respect to a continuous sensitive attribute S by penalizing a single joint discrepancy d(P_{Z,S}, P_Z ⊗ P_S) rather than the conditional-integral criteria (GDP, EIPM, mutual information) that average a per-value discrepancy over S. The authors prove a disintegration identity (Theorem 3.2) and, under a decomposable witness class, recover the conditional-integral functional (Corollary 3.4). They instantiate the joint discrepancy with HSIC, prove a spectral equivalence between HSIC and the conditional MMD integral (Theorem 4.5), derive population and finite-sample GDP control (Corollaries 4.6 and Theorem 4.7), and give a uniform concentration bound for the empirical HSIC over encoder classes at an O(n^{-1/2}) rate (Theorem 5.1). The resulting algorithm, FRHSIC, is evaluated on synthetic data and five real datasets, reporting fairness–accuracy tradeoffs comparable to baselines and a large per-epoch speedup over FREM.

Significance. If the central equivalence were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a clean measure-theoretic connection between joint-distribution dependence measures and conditional-integral fairness criteria, provides a closed-form O(n^2) regularizer, supplies explicit spectral and concentration bounds, and releases code and experimental details. The disintegration identity and the algebraic derivations in Sections 3–4 are sound, and the empirical evaluation is more careful than typical in this literature, including matched operating points, five random splits, and a reproducibility checklist. However, the paper's headline statistical-efficiency claim rests on a spectral-tail assumption that the authors themselves concede is vacuous for Gaussian kernels on continuous S, which is the exact setting of every real-data experiment. The significance is therefore conditional on either a non-vacuous tail regime or a substantive reinterpretation of what the HSIC rate controls.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 4.5 and Appendix H.3] The upper bound E_S[MMD^2(P_{Z|S},P_Z)] ≤ λ_m^{-1} HSIC(Z,S) + ρ_m^2 is useful only when the spectral tail ρ_m^2 is small, but Appendix H.3 explicitly states that for Gaussian kernels on continuous S the population-level bound becomes vacuous because the analogous constant collapses to zero. Since all real datasets in Section 6.1 use continuous S (age or racial composition) with Gaussian kernels, the paper does not establish that a small empirical HSIC implies a small conditional MMD integral in its own operating regime. Consequently, the abstract and Section 6.2 compare the O(n^{-1/2}) rate of HSIC with the O(n^{-2/5}) rate of the conditional-route estimator while the two statistics may be converging to different population functionals. The authors should either prove a non-vacuous tail bound under explicit regularity conditions matching the experiments, or revise the equivalence and efficiency claims to refer only to the spectral-projected quantities actually controlled.
  2. [Definition 3.3 and Corollary 3.4] The decomposability condition used to recover the exact conditional-integral IPM is not satisfied by the HSIC witness class. Corollary 3.4 requires the class F to contain every measurable selector s ↦ g_s ∈ V, but for the tensor-product RKHS unit ball corresponding to HSIC this is generally false: for a Gaussian kernel on S, even a constant selector g(z) does not lie in F_S ⊗ F_Z because constant functions are not in the RKHS of a Gaussian kernel. Thus HSIC is not covered by the exact equality of Corollary 3.4, and the bridge from HSIC to the conditional MMD integral is entirely the spectral bound of Theorem 4.5, whose vacuity is the subject of the previous comment. The manuscript should state which natural witness classes are decomposable and explicitly acknowledge that the HSIC witness class is not among them.
  3. [Theorem 5.1 and Appendix G.2] The uniform concentration guarantee at the O(n^{-1/2}) rate is a load-bearing part of the train-to-population argument, but the proof in Appendix G.2 consists of a mapping onto Corollary 23 of Ni and Huo (2024) and explicitly says 'We do not reprove that result.' Because the cited work is the authors' own preprint and is not stated verbatim in the manuscript, the reader cannot verify the exact assumptions, constants, or scope of the imported theorem. The authors should either reproduce the proof in an appendix or state the imported result in full, including the precise definition of the two-sample statistic, the complexity measure, and the conditions under which Corollary 23 applies to the FRHSIC objective.
  4. [Section 6.2 and Figure 2] The synthetic convergence experiment measures the error of each estimator relative to its own population value, not the error relative to the fairness target E_S[MMD^2(P_{Z|S},P_Z)] or to the GDP gap. The fitted slopes of −0.46 for HSIC and −0.44 for EIPM therefore support the claim that empirical HSIC converges quickly as an estimator of population HSIC, but they do not directly support the claim that FRHSIC reaches the conditional-integral fairness target at the O(n^{-1/2}) rate. If the spectral-tail issue in the first comment is unresolved, the faster rate is a statement about a different functional; this distinction should be made explicit in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'basel es' in the abstract appears to be a typo for 'baselines'; please correct it.
  2. [Appendix E.1, Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6(c) refers to 'Thm. 3.4', which appears to be a typo; the intended reference is likely Theorem 4.7, the finite-sample GDP control bound.
  3. [Appendix D.6] The reproducibility checklist says the reported numbers 'agree with our earlier leakage-affected numbers to within standard deviations'; please clarify what 'leakage-affected' refers to, since the phrase is ambiguous and could be read as suggesting undisclosed earlier experiments.
  4. [Section 4.1, Theorem 4.5] The assumption ∥(I−P_m)Δ∥²_{L^2(P_S;F_Z)} ≤ ρ_m^2 is stated as a hypothesis of Theorem 4.5, but ρ_m^2 is the quantity whose smallness the theorem needs to be useful. Please add a remark explaining how one might verify or bound ρ_m^2 for specific kernels and target classes, and note explicitly the negative result reported in Appendix H.3.
  5. [Appendix G.2] The notation G({id_S}(S)) = 0 relies on a 'no-absolute-value convention' from Ni and Huo (2024); since this convention is not standard, please restate it in the appendix so the vanishing of the singleton-class complexity term is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the HSIC-to-conditional-MMD equivalence is derived in-paper, with only a disclosed self-citation for the uniform concentration theorem.

full rationale

No circularity found. The disintegration identity (Theorem 3.2), the decomposable-class recovery (Corollary 3.4), and the spectral equivalence (Theorem 4.5) are derived in-paper from standard measure theory and spectral decomposition; the spectral tail in Theorem 4.5 is the explicit remainder and is not silently set to zero. Appendix H.3 candidly concedes that for Gaussian kernels on continuous S the population-level bound becomes vacuous; that is a limitation on the practical force of the equivalence, not a circular reduction. The only external dependency is Theorem 5.1, whose proof is explicitly imported from the authors' prior work (Ni and Huo 2024); the paper states 'We do not reprove that result; this appendix only maps FRHSIC onto it.' This is a disclosed self-citation, but the cited result is a general uniform concentration inequality whose assumptions do not include the fairness target, so per the review rules it is independent support and does not make the derivation circular. The O(n^{-1/2}) empirical rate is additionally supported by the standard V-statistic argument and by the synthetic log-log slopes, not by the self-citation. Overall, no Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, was found in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory rests on standard measure-theoretic tools, the characteristic-kernel assumption, and a spectral smallness condition that the authors themselves show can be vacuous in the Gaussian-kernel population limit. The practical method adds three user-chosen quantities: lambda, kernel bandwidths, and the spectral projection order m. The main uniform concentration guarantee is imported from the authors' earlier preprint, which is a self-citation burden.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (regularization strength) = swept over {0.1, 1, 10, 100, 500}, selected by HSIC-test heuristic on validation (App H.6)
    Controls the fairness-accuracy tradeoff; all reported fairness-accuracy frontiers depend on this user-chosen hyperparameter.
  • kernel bandwidths sigma_Z and sigma_S = median heuristic on training data; sigma_Z recomputed every 20 epochs
    Data-dependent scale parameters for the HSIC kernels. The theory in Theorem 5.1 assumes fixed kernels, so the practical data-dependent selection is outside the stated concentration result.
  • spectral projection order m = free in Theorems 4.5 and 4.7; tightness checks use m equal to the full rank
    The quality of the bounds depends on m, trading resolution of the sensitive directions against the conditioning of eigenvalue lambda_m. No principled selection rule is given.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Disintegration theorem for regular conditional distributions on standard Borel spaces (Kallenberg, Thm 5.4).
    Used in Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 to rewrite the joint law as the conditional law integrated over S.
  • domain assumption The product kernel k_Z tensor k_S is characteristic for the relevant laws on Z times S.
    Needed so that HSIC(Z,S)=0 if and only if Z and S are independent (Definition 2.1, Section 4.1, citing Szabo and Sriperumbudur 2018).
  • domain assumption Kernels k_Z and k_S are bounded and their feature maps are Lipschitz, as in Assumption 20 of Ni and Huo (2024).
    Invoked in Theorem 5.1 and Proposition G.2 for the uniform concentration bound; may fail for unbounded data or unbounded kernels.
  • ad hoc to paper Spectral tail condition in Theorem 4.5: for the chosen m, the L2(P_S; F_Z) tail norm of Delta below the m-th eigenfunction is at most rho_m^2.
    If rho_m is not small, the upper bound 1/lambda_m HSIC + rho_m^2 is vacuous. Appendix H.3 reports that this collapse occurs for Gaussian kernels on continuous S.
  • ad hoc to paper Measurable epsilon-selector assumption in Corollary 3.4: for every epsilon there exists a measurable selector s -> g_s^epsilon in V achieving the per-value IPM within epsilon.
    Needed for the lower bound of the recovery identity; without it the joint IPM may be strictly smaller than the conditional-integral functional.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Joint-Distribution Route to Fair Representations with Continuous Sensitive Attributes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XD2CARPH

@misc{pith2026260810470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Joint-Distribution Route to Fair Representations with Continuous Sensitive Attributes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XD2CARPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10470}
}
abstract

Fair representation learning with a continuous sensitive attribute $S$ requires a representation $Z$ that is statistically independent of $S$. Existing criteria, including generalized demographic parity, the expectation of integral probability metrics (EIPM), and mutual information, enforce this independence by averaging a per-value discrepancy between the conditional law $P_{Z \mid S=s}$ and the marginal $P_Z$ over the law of $S$. This approach requires a nonparametric surrogate for the conditional law at each sensitive value. We propose evaluating independence through a single joint discrepancy $d\left(P_{Z, S}, P_Z \otimes P_S\right)$ between the joint law and the product of its marginals. We establish a disintegration identity; on decomposable witness classes it equals the conditional-integral functional that EIPM and generalized demographic parity instantiate. By reaching the same target without the conditional law, this discrepancy can be estimated directly from samples via a dependence statistic rather than conditional smoothing. We take the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) as an instance of the joint discrepancy $d$ to investigate the statistical efficiency of replacing the conditional formulation. The HSIC estimator is a closed-form $O\left(n^2\right)$ statistic that converges at the $O\left(n^{-1 / 2}\right)$ rate, in contrast to the nonparametric $O\left(n^{-2 / 5}\right)$ rate of the conditional-route estimators. We prove this instance is equivalent to the conditional maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) integral up to an explicit spectral tail. The corresponding algorithmic implementation, i.e., FRHSIC, attains fairness-accuracy tradeoffs comparable to conditional-route basel es while reducing per-epoch training time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adaptive test of independence based on HSIC measures

    M \'e lisande Albert, B \'e atrice Laurent, Amandine Marrel, and Anouar Meynaoui. Adaptive test of independence based on HSIC measures. The Annals of Statistics, 50 0 (2): 0 858--879, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Machine bias

    Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. Machine bias. ProPublica, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Three naive B ayes approaches for discrimination-free classification

    Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. Three naive B ayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data mining and knowledge discovery, 21: 0 277--292, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    A fair classifier using kernel density estimation

    Jaewoong Cho, Gyeongjo Hwang, and Changho Suh. A fair classifier using kernel density estimation. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 15088--15099. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020 a . URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ac38...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A fair classifier using mutual information

    Jaewoong Cho, Gyeongjo Hwang, and Changho Suh. A fair classifier using mutual information. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 2521--2526, 2020 b

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Cover and Joy A

    Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory. Wiley-Interscience, 2 edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Flexibly fair representation learning by disentanglement

    Elliot Creager, David Madras, J \"o rn-Henrik Jacobsen, Marissa Weis, Kevin Swersky, Toniann Pitassi, and Richard Zemel. Flexibly fair representation learning by disentanglement. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1436--1445. PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    MMD-B-Fair : Learning fair representations with statistical testing

    Namrata Deka and Danica J Sutherland. MMD-B-Fair : Learning fair representations with statistical testing. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 9564--9576. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning

    Frances Ding, Moritz Hardt, John Miller, and Ludwig Schmidt. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 6478--6490, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Bach, and Arthur Gretton

    Kenji Fukumizu, Francis R. Bach, and Arthur Gretton. Statistical consistency of kernel canonical correlation analysis. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8: 0 361--383, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Fairness without the sensitive attribute via causal variational autoencoder

    Vincent Grari, Sylvain Lamprier, and Marcin Detyniecki. Fairness without the sensitive attribute via causal variational autoencoder. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Measuring statistical dependence with Hilbert-Schmidt norms

    Arthur Gretton, Olivier Bousquet, Alex Smola, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Measuring statistical dependence with Hilbert-Schmidt norms. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 16th International Conference, ALT 2005, Singapore, October 8-11, 2005. Proceedings 16, pages 63--77. Springer, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    A kernel statistical test of independence

    Arthur Gretton, Kenji Fukumizu, Choon Teo, Le Song, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Alex Smola. A kernel statistical test of independence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 20, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    A kernel two-sample test

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Alexander Smola. A kernel two-sample test. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13 0 (1): 0 723--773, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Generalized demographic parity for group fairness

    Zhimeng Jiang, Xiaotian Han, Chao Fan, Fan Yang, Ali Mostafavi, and Xia Hu. Generalized demographic parity for group fairness. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Foundations of Modern Probability

    Olav Kallenberg. Foundations of Modern Probability. Springer, 2 edition, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Random matrix approximation of spectra of integral operators

    Vladimir Koltchinskii and Evarist Gin \'e . Random matrix approximation of spectra of integral operators. Bernoulli, 6 0 (1): 0 113--167, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    Fair representation learning for continuous sensitive attributes using expectation of integral probability metrics

    Insung Kong, Kunwoong Kim, and Yongdai Kim. Fair representation learning for continuous sensitive attributes using expectation of integral probability metrics. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Counterfactual fairness

    Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kernel dependence regularizers and Gaussian processes with applications to algorithmic fairness

    Zhu Li, Adri \'a n P \'e rez-Suay, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Dino Sejdinovic. Kernel dependence regularizers and Gaussian processes with applications to algorithmic fairness. Pattern Recognition, 132: 0 108922, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    The variational fair autoencoder

    Christos Louizos, Kevin Swersky, Yujia Li, Max Welling, and Richard Zemel. The variational fair autoencoder. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    The HSIC bottleneck: Deep learning without back-propagation

    Wan-Duo Kurt Ma, JP Lewis, and W Bastiaan Kleijn. The HSIC bottleneck: Deep learning without back-propagation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 5085--5092, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Nonlinear dimensionality reduction based on HSIC maximization

    Zhengming Ma, Zengrong Zhan, Xiaoyuan Ouyang, and Xue Su. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction based on HSIC maximization. IEEE Access, 6: 0 55537--55555, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Learning adversarially fair and transferable representations

    David Madras, Elliot Creager, Toniann Pitassi, and Richard Zemel. Learning adversarially fair and transferable representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3384--3393. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments

    Jean Mary, Cl \'e ment Calauz \`e nes, and Noureddine El Karoui . Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4382--4391, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    On estimating regression

    Elizbar A Nadaraya. On estimating regression. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 9 0 (1): 0 141--142, 1964

    1964

  19. [27]

    A uniform concentration inequality for kernel-based two-sample statistics

    Yijin Ni and Xiaoming Huo. A uniform concentration inequality for kernel-based two-sample statistics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14051, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference

    Judea Pearl. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Fair kernel learning

    Adri \'a n P \'e rez-Suay, Valero Laparra, Gonzalo Mateo-Garc \'i a, Jordi Mu \ n oz-Mar \'i , Luis G \'o mez-Chova, and Gustau Camps-Valls. Fair kernel learning. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD), pages 339--355. Springer, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Discovering fair representations in the data domain

    Novi Quadrianto, Viktoriia Sharmanska, and Oliver Thomas. Discovering fair representations in the data domain. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Achieving equalized odds by resampling sensitive attributes

    Yaniv Romano, Stephen Bates, and Emmanuel J Cand \`e s. Achieving equalized odds by resampling sensitive attributes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 361--371, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Equivalence of distance-based and RKHS -based statistics in hypothesis testing

    Dino Sejdinovic, Bharath Sriperumbudur, Arthur Gretton, and Kenji Fukumizu. Equivalence of distance-based and RKHS -based statistics in hypothesis testing. The annals of statistics, pages 2263--2291, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Supervised feature selection via dependence estimation

    Le Song, Alex Smola, Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, and Justin Bedo. Supervised feature selection via dependence estimation. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, pages 823--830, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Feature selection via dependence maximization

    Le Song, Alex Smola, Arthur Gretton, Justin Bedo, and Karsten Borgwardt. Feature selection via dependence maximization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13 0 (1): 0 1393--1434, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Characteristic and universal tensor product kernels

    Zolt \'a n Szab \'o and Bharath K Sriperumbudur. Characteristic and universal tensor product kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 0 (233): 0 1--29, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances

    G \'a bor J Sz \'e kely, Maria L Rizzo, and Nail K Bakirov. Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances. The annals of statistics, 35 0 (6): 0 2769--2794, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Smooth regression analysis

    Geoffrey S Watson. Smooth regression analysis. Sankhy \=a : The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A , pages 359--372, 1964

    1964

  30. [38]

    Learning fair representations

    Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. Learning fair representations. In Sanjoy Dasgupta and David McAllester, editors, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 28 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, page...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.