Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 37 references

FairTTTS: A Tree Test Time Simulation Method for Fairness-Aware Classification

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FairTTTS cuts Equalized Odds gaps by about 21% and lifts accuracy by 0.55%

desk verdict A modest, clearly-written fairness extension of the authors' own TTTS, but the missing TTTS control and a flawed flip-probability formula as written leave the core claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08155 v1 pith:72AQGC4I submitted 2025-01-14 cs.LG cs.AI

Nurit Cohen-Inger , Lior Rokach , Bracha Shapira , Seffi Cohen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords FairnessinMachineLearningBiasMitigationTreeTestTimeSimulationMonteCarloPost-processingMethodsDecisionTreesEqualizedOddsDisparateImpact
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

This paper tries to show that fairness in tree-based classifiers can be improved after training, without retraining and without the usual accuracy penalty. FairTTTS adapts the Tree Test Time Simulation (TTTS) technique, which probabilistically flips which branch a sample takes at internal nodes, to nodes that split on a protected attribute: when an unprivileged sample is headed toward an unfavorable class, the flip probability is multiplied by a factor alpha. Across eight experiments on seven benchmark datasets, the method reports a 20.96% average reduction in Equalized Odds Difference over a random-forest baseline, versus 18.78% for the ThresholdOptimizer comparator, while accuracy rises 0.55% on average and ThresholdOptimizer falls 0.42%. If these results hold, practitioners with pre-trained decision trees could reduce group-level disparities at inference time while keeping or slightly improving predictive performance.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the method is a probabilistic tree-traversal routine. Each test sample is pushed down the tree $S$ times; at every internal node a coin is flipped with probability $p_{\text{flip}}$ from a distance-based heuristic, and when the flip happens the sample goes to the opposite child. The fairness-specific modification is restricted to protected-attribute nodes: for unprivileged samples on a path to the unfavorable class, $p_{\text{flip}}$ is scaled by $\alpha$ (set to 9 in the experiments, capped at 0.5), so near-threshold samples near a protected split are redirected more often. The final prediction aggregates the $S$ simulated leaf labels, and $\alpha$ acts as a tunable knob between fairness and accuracy.

What would settle it

On a dataset like COMPAS or Adult, record how often the trained random forest actually splits on the protected attribute; then rerun FairTTTS with all protected-attribute splits forced absent. If the 20.96% average EOD improvement persists under either condition, the protected-node flip mechanism is not the operative cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fairness-oriented post-processing flip at protected-attribute nodes yields both fairness and accuracy gains. Formally, at each internal node $n$, FairTTTS uses TTTS's distance-based flip probability $p_{\text{flip}}(n,X)=\min(p_{\max}-|X_{f_n}-t_n|/\delta_{\max},p_{\max})$; if node $n$ splits on the protected attribute $Z$, the sample belongs to the unprivileged group, and the traversal is sending it to the unfavorable class, the probability is boosted to $\min(\alpha \cdot p_{\text{flip}},0.5)$. Aggregating $S=100$ stochastic traversals gives the final class probability. The paper claims this reduces EOD by 20.96% on average over baseline and improves DI in seven of eight experiments, while improving accuracy by 0.55%; ThresholdOptimizer, by comparison, improves EOD by 18.78% and lowers accuracy by 0.42%. The argument for why this works is heuristic: near-threshold flips at protected nodes shift local decision boundaries, giving unprivileged samples more favorable outcomes and shrinking group-level disparities.

Load-bearing premise

FairTTTS only changes outcomes when the trained tree contains a split on the protected attribute; if a forest never splits on it, the fairness adjustment never fires and the claimed gains cannot be produced by the stated mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pre-trained random forest or decision tree can be made fairer on EOD and DI without retraining, as long as its internal split structure is accessible.
  • Across eight dataset-attribute experiments, FairTTTS reduces EOD in every case and beats ThresholdOptimizer in seven; accuracy rises by 0.55% on average, where ThresholdOptimizer drops 0.42%.
  • The alpha parameter controls the fairness-accuracy trade-off: moderate alpha values improve EOD with little accuracy change, while very large alpha adds randomness with diminishing returns.
  • The method generalizes to any decision-tree architecture, including gradient-boosted trees, because it only needs access to internal nodes and thresholds.
  • Inference cost scales with $S=100$ simulations per sample; on the Adult dataset this costs about 1.6 ms per sample, roughly 200 to 250 times slower than plain inference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the reported 21% average gain depends on fitted forests actually splitting on the protected attribute; random-forest feature sampling can leave that attribute out of every tree, in which case FairTTTS never activates and the gain must come from plain TTTS, not from the protected-node mechanism.
  • Inference: because flips are only applied to unprivileged samples routed to the unfavorable class, the method is a targeted affirmative intervention; if a dataset's bias flows through non-protected proxy features, the mechanism would need to detect paths that correlate with the protected attribute rather than splits on it.
  • Inference: a user of this method would want a diagnostic statistic, such as the fraction of trees or nodes splitting on the protected attribute, alongside EOD and accuracy, to predict when the method can work and to tune alpha accordingly.
  • Inference: the same traversal could be extended to target other fairness metrics, for example flipping toward equalized opportunity rather than toward a fixed favorable class, by changing which samples and which leaf directions trigger the alpha boost.
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

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FairTTTS, a post-processing fairness intervention for decision trees and random forests. Building on the TTTS traversal method, FairTTTS runs S=100 Monte Carlo traversals and, at nodes that split on the protected attribute, multiplies the flip probability by alpha=9 for unprivileged samples that would be directed toward the unfavorable class. The final prediction is the majority vote over simulations. The authors evaluate FairTTTS against an unmodified random forest and ThresholdOptimizer on seven datasets (eight protected-attribute experiments), reporting EOD, DI, and accuracy, and claim an average EOD improvement of 20.96% over baseline versus 18.78% for ThresholdOptimizer, plus a 0.55% accuracy gain. Source code is provided.

Significance. Fairness-aware post-processing that can improve both EOD and accuracy without retraining would be practically valuable, especially for tree ensembles. The paper has clear strengths: the algorithm is specified in pseudocode, source code is released, experiments span multiple domains and sensitive attributes, and the sensitivity analysis for alpha addresses an important design parameter. However, the current evidence does not establish the central attribution claim, because the fairness-specific component is never isolated from plain TTTS and the protected-split activation frequency is unreported. Several internal inconsistencies in Eq. (2), Algorithm 1/Eq. (3), and the DI analysis, plus mismatches between the abstract's aggregate numbers and Table 2, prevent acceptance as written. These issues are substantial but appear fixable with additional experiments and reporting.

major comments (6)
  1. [§2.3.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) can return negative probabilities: with pmax=0.1, |X_f - t|=0.5, and delta_max=1, the expression equals -0.4. The text's claim that delta_max ensures p_flip>=0 is therefore false unless an unstated max(0,·) clamp is applied. Algorithm 1 then samples from a negative probability, making the method ill-defined for such inputs. Please add the clamp and state it explicitly.
  2. [Algorithm 1 vs §2.3.2, Eq. (3)] The fairness adjustment condition is underspecified. Equation (3) says the flip probability is increased only when the traversal is directing an unprivileged sample toward the unfavorable class y=0, but Algorithm 1 computes p_flip at line 5 before the traversal direction is chosen and never defines how a node's child direction maps to a class. Without an operational definition (for example, the fraction of favorable labels in each child), the method cannot be reproduced exactly as written.
  3. [§3.3 and §4] The reported gains cannot be attributed to the fairness-specific alpha adjustment because plain TTTS is not included as a control. Equation (2) applies stochastic flips at every node, so the EOD and accuracy changes could come from TTTS's base traversal. In addition, the paper never reports how often the fitted trees split on the protected attribute; if random-forest feature sampling omits Z, Eq. (3) never fires and FairTTTS degenerates to TTTS. Please add a plain-TTTS baseline and report the frequency of protected-attribute splits per dataset.
  4. [§4.1, Table 2] The DI analysis treats distance from 1 incorrectly. Table 2 shows FairTTTS moves DI away from 1 on BANK_AGE (1.0185 to 1.0515), COMPAS_RACE (1.5949 to 1.6405), and RECRUIT_SEX (0.7072 to 0.6935), so DI improves relative to baseline in only five of eight experiments, not seven. The paper should replace the directional claim with absolute distance to 1 or a signed metric defined in advance.
  5. [Abstract and §4.1 vs Table 2] The headline aggregate numbers do not match Table 2. Averaging the per-experiment relative EOD reductions from Table 2 gives roughly 23.3%, not 20.96%; the mean accuracy gain is about 0.18 percentage points, not 0.55%; and ThresholdOptimizer's accuracy drop is about 0.29 percentage points, not 0.42%. Please reconcile the abstract and Section 4.1 with the reported table or correct the table.
  6. [§3.6 and §4] No significance tests or confidence intervals are reported, and several comparisons have heavily overlapping standard deviations (e.g., ADULT_RACE EOD: baseline 0.0707±0.0598, FairTTTS 0.0656±0.0370). Paired tests across the five folds, or at least effect sizes with intervals, are needed to support the claim of consistent improvement. Also, the hyperparameters alpha=9, pmax=0.1, and S=100 are chosen from preliminary experiments; please state whether these choices were made on training/validation data independent of the test folds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2] The text contains a typo, 'ionRelated Work', which should be cleaned up.
  2. [Table 2] The table header repeats 'Accuracy' and 'Equalized Odds' in adjacent columns; the header should be fixed for readability.
  3. [§2.1] The notation Z⊆X for a sensitive attribute is misleading; use Z∈X or explicitly define X as a feature vector that includes Z.
  4. [Figure 4] The sensitivity analysis is described only qualitatively; report the numeric EOD and accuracy values for each alpha value or add a companion table.
  5. [§1.3 and §2.3.2] The relationship between Eq. (1) from TTTS and Eq. (2) is confusing because Eq. (1) contains a max(0,·) clamp while Eq. (2) omits it; clarifying the connection would improve reproducibility.
  6. [§3.3] The comparison set is thin; adding at least one more established post-processing baseline (e.g., reject-option classification or equalized-odds post-processing) would strengthen the empirical claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FairTTTS's headline EOD improvement is an empirical result on external benchmarks, and the self-citation to the TTTS paper is to a published, independently evaluated source.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the TTTS flip probability (Eq. 1) to FairTTTS's fairness-adjusted flip probability (Eqs. 2-3), the traversal algorithm, and the fairness metrics (Eqs. 5-6). The fairness intervention is deliberately defined to increase the flip probability for unprivileged samples heading toward the unfavorable class, so some improvement in Disparate Impact (Eq. 6) is a direct consequence of the intervention's definition. However, the paper's headline claim is an Equalized Odds Difference reduction (about 21% in Sec. 4.1), and EOD depends on TPR/FPR differences between groups (Eq. 5), which are not determined by the flip rule alone. The EOD results are measured with 5-fold cross-validation on seven external benchmark datasets (Sec. 3.1, 3.6), so the central claim is not equivalent to the inputs by construction. The base TTTS traversal and distance heuristic come from the authors' own prior AAAI paper [14], but that paper contains its own independent experimental evaluation, so this self-citation is not a self-referential proof. The hyperparameter alpha=9 is selected in preliminary experiments (Sec. 3.5.1), and a sensitivity analysis is reported; there is no evidence that test-set labels were used for selection. The absence of a plain-TTTS control and the unverified frequency of protected-attribute splits are experimental attribution concerns rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained with respect to its central empirical claim, and the only minor issue is the self-citation of the TTTS foundation, which is not load-bearing in a circular sense.

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

The central claim rests on three domain assumptions and three fitted hyperparameters; no new entities are introduced. The largest uncharged cost is alpha, tuned on the authors' preliminary experiments, and the assumption that protected attributes appear as explicit split nodes.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 9.0
    Multiplicative fairness adjustment factor in Eq. (3); chosen via preliminary experiments (Section 3.5.1), and the optimal value varies by dataset (Section 4.3).
  • p_max = 0.1
    Maximum flip probability in Eq. (2); set as a hyperparameter from preliminary experiments (Section 3.5.1).
  • S = 100
    Number of Monte Carlo simulations in Eq. (4); set as a hyperparameter (Section 3.5.1); affects variance and runtime.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Decision trees encode bias through splits on protected attributes, so flipping those splits can reduce bias.
    Section 2.4.1 states this as the motivation; if trees do not split on the protected attribute, the method is inert.
  • domain assumption Favorable class is y=1 and unprivileged group is Z=0; flipping is applied only when unprivileged samples are directed to y=0.
    Section 2.3.2 defines the flip adjustment; the heuristic argument in Section 2.5 relies on this coding.
  • domain assumption Feature distributions are locally continuous near thresholds and threshold assignments are reasonable.
    Section 2.5 invokes 'mild assumptions (e.g., local continuity of feature distributions, reasonable threshold assignments)' to argue that flipping increases favorable outcomes for the unprivileged group.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FairTTTS: A Tree Test Time Simulation Method for Fairness-Aware Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72AQGC4I

@misc{pith2026250108155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FairTTTS: A Tree Test Time Simulation Method for Fairness-Aware Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72AQGC4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08155}
}
read the original abstract

Algorithmic decision-making has become deeply ingrained in many domains, yet biases in machine learning models can still produce discriminatory outcomes, often harming unprivileged groups. Achieving fair classification is inherently challenging, requiring a careful balance between predictive performance and ethical considerations. We present FairTTTS, a novel post-processing bias mitigation method inspired by the Tree Test Time Simulation (TTTS) method. Originally developed to enhance accuracy and robustness against adversarial inputs through probabilistic decision-path adjustments, TTTS serves as the foundation for FairTTTS. By building on this accuracy-enhancing technique, FairTTTS mitigates bias and improves predictive performance. FairTTTS uses a distance-based heuristic to adjust decisions at protected attribute nodes, ensuring fairness for unprivileged samples. This fairness-oriented adjustment occurs as a post-processing step, allowing FairTTTS to be applied to pre-trained models, diverse datasets, and various fairness metrics without retraining. Extensive evaluation on seven benchmark datasets shows that FairTTTS outperforms traditional methods in fairness improvement, achieving a 20.96% average increase over the baseline compared to 18.78% for related work, and further enhances accuracy by 0.55%. In contrast, competing methods typically reduce accuracy by 0.42%. These results confirm that FairTTTS effectively promotes more equitable decision-making while simultaneously improving predictive performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustrative example of the FairTTTS approach. At nodes involving protected attributes (shown at the second depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accuracy vs. Equalized Odds Across Datasets, Protected Attributes and Methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy vs. Equalized Odds Difference across datasets, protected attributes, and methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of FairTTTS to the Fairness Adjustment Factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adel Abusitta, Esma Aïmeur, and Omar Abdel Wahab. 2019. Generative adversarial networks for mitigating biases in machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09972 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Philip Adler, Casey Falk, Sorelle A Friedler, Tionney Nix, Gabriel Rybeck, Carlos Scheidegger, Brandon Smith, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian

    work page

  3. [3]

    Alvarez, Kristen M

    Jose M. Alvarez, Kristen M. Scott, Bettina Berendt, and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2023. Domain Adaptive Decision Trees: Implications for Accuracy and Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Chicago, IL, USA) (FAccT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 423–433. https://doi.org/10...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias risk assessments in criminal sentencing.ProPublica, May 23 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2022. Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics . Auerbach Publications, 254–264

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Fairness and Machine Learning . fairmlbook.org. https://fairmlbook.org

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Barry Becker and Ronny Kohavi. 1996. Adult. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20

    doi:10.24432/c5xw20 1996

  8. [8]

    Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. 2021. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research 50, 1 (2021), 3–44

    2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T

    Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y. Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T. Kalai. 2016. Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 29. 4349–4357

    2016

  2. [10]

    Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. 2010. Three naive bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data mining and knowledge discovery 21 (2010), 277–292

    2010

  3. [11]

    Calmon, Dennis Wei, Bhargavi Vinzamuri, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, and Kush R

    Flavio P. Calmon, Dennis Wei, Bhargavi Vinzamuri, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, and Kush R. Varshney. 2017. Optimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30. 3992–4001

    2017

  4. [12]

    Simon Caton and Christian Haas. 2020. Fairness in machine learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04053 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Silvia Chiappa. 2019. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 33. 7801–7808

    2019

  6. [14]

    Seffi Cohen, Ofir Arbili, Yisroel Mirsky, and Lior Rokach. 2024. TTTS: Tree Test Time Simulation for Enhancing Decision Tree Robustness against Adversarial Examples. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 38, 19 (Mar. 2024), 20993–21000. https://doi.org/...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Nurit Cohen-Inger, Seffi Cohen, Neomi Rabaev, Lior Rokach, and Bracha Shapira. 2025. BiasGuard: Guardrailing Fairness in Machine Learning Production Systems. arXiv:2501.04142 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04142

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nurit Cohen-Inger, Guy Rozenblatt, Seffi Cohen, Lior Rokach, and Bracha Shapira. 2024. FairUS-UpSampling Optimized Method for Boosting Fairness. In 27th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2024 . IOS Press BV, 962–970

    2024

  9. [17]

    Michael Feldman, Sorelle A Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 259–268

    2015

  10. [18]

    Benjamin Fish, Jeremy Kun, and Ádám D Lelkes. 2016. A confidence-based approach for balancing fairness and accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM international conference on data mining . SIAM, 144–152

    2016

  11. [19]

    Sorelle Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2014. Certifying and removing disparate impact.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3756 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sorelle A Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Sonam Choudhary, Evan P Hamilton, and Derek Roth. 2019. A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparenc...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 29. 3315–3323

    2016

  14. [22]

    Max Hort, Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M Zhang, Mark Harman, and Federica Sarro. 2024. Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing 1, 2 (2024), 1–52

    2024

  15. [23]

    Faisal Kamiran, Asim Karim, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2012. Decision Theory for Discrimination-Aware Classification. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining . IEEE, 924–929

    2012

  16. [24]

    Toshihiro Kamishima, Shotaro Akaho, Hideki Asoh, and Jun Sakuma. 2012. Fairness-Aware Classifier with Prejudice Remover Regularizer. InJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 35–50

    2012

  17. [25]

    Harsh Kasyap, Ugur Ilker Atmaca, Michela Iezzi, Toby Walsh, and Carsten Maple. 2024. 1. Mitigating Bias: Model Pruning for Enhanced Model Fairness and Efficiency. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (2024). https://doi.org/10.3233/faia240589

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Ron Kohavi et al. 1996. Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid.. In Kdd, Vol. 96. 202–207

    1996

  19. [27]

    Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner, and Julia Angwin. 2016. How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica (5 2016) 9, 1 (2016), 3–3

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kristian Lum and James Johndrow. 2016. A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08077 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Williamson

    Aditya Krishna Menon and Robert C. Williamson. 2018. The Cost of Fairness in Binary Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81) . PMLR, 107–118

    2018

  22. [30]

    Sérgio Moro, Paulo Cortez, and Paulo Rita. 2014. A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decision Support Systems 62 (2014), 22–31. Manuscript submitted to ACM 16 Nurit Cohen-Inger, Lior Rokach, Bracha Shapira, and Seffi Cohen

    2014

  23. [31]

    Weinberger

    Geoff Pleiss, Manish Raghunathan, Felix Wu, Jon Kleinberg, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On Fairness and Calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30. 5684–5693

    2017

  24. [32]

    Samira Samadi, Uthaipon Tantipongpipat, Jamie H Morgenstern, Mohit Singh, and Santosh Vempala. 2018. The price of fair pca: One extra dimension. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Mahanazuddin Syed, Shorabuddin Syed, Kevin Sexton, Hafsa Bareen Syeda, Maryam Garza, Meredith Zozus, Farhanuddin Syed, Salma Begum, Abdullah Usama Syed, Joseph Sanford, et al . 2021. Application of machine learning in intensive care unit (ICU) settings using MIMIC dataset: sys...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. In 2018 ieee/acm international workshop on software fairness (fairware) . IEEE, 1–7

    2018

  27. [35]

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2017. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification Without Disparate Mistreatment. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. Inte...

    2017

  28. [36]

    Brian Hu Zhang, Blake Lemoine, and Margaret Mitchell. 2018. Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 335–340. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2018

  29. [2018]

    Knowledge and Information Systems 54 (2018), 95–122

    Auditing black-box models for indirect influence. Knowledge and Information Systems 54 (2018), 95–122

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.