跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.01647 · v1

Yielding Fairness: Coupled Learning and Fairness for Value-Weighted Ranking

首次提交 2026-11-01 14:49
版本更新 2026-11-01 14:49
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Risk screening and recommendation systems pass or block accounts that generate both value and loss. Under a blocked-value budget, a cap on expected value forgone through blocking, the optimal ranking orders accounts by expected value per unit expected loss, a ratio of conditional expectations. This rule can conflict with accepted harm or net-harm criteria, blocking accounts that another criterion would pass at the same budget. We call these cases account-level objections and define group complaint disparity as the difference between groups' normalized realized objections. Weighted binary cross-entropy (W-BCE) implements the value-per-loss order with one score. Objection penalties modify the ranking, while group multipliers scale those penalties differently by group, tracing tradeoffs between loss capture and complaint disparity. This preserves the value-budgeted ranking structure and makes the cost of reducing contestable blocks explicit. Across public recommendation, insurance, credit, and mortgage datasets, we compare undamped W-BCE with ordinary BCE using yield Gini, an area summary of loss capture versus blocked value. Logarithmic weight damping is evaluated separately. Held-out evaluations measure capture-disparity tradeoffs. Validation-selected group-aware complaint penalties improve complaint closure in some cohorts. A corrected comparison normalizes and enlarges candidate policy banks using validation-only price sweeps and retains all ten applicable sources. The source-level results do not establish a statistically significant average advantage over group-blind pricing at the fixed minimum retained loss capture. We also compare with blocked-count, blocked-value, and protected-loss parity postprocessors, which do not directly constrain realized objections, and measure objections in candidate-count and loss units.

作者备注:17 pages, 5 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-01 14:49 · 最新观测版本

Yielding Fairness: Coupled Learning and Fairness for Value-Weighted Ranking

Risk screening and recommendation systems pass or block accounts that generate both value and loss. Under a blocked-value budget, a cap on expected value forgone through blocking, the optimal ranking orders accounts by expected value per unit expected loss, a ratio of conditional expectations. This rule can conflict with accepted harm or net-harm criteria, blocking accounts that another criterion would pass at the same budget. We call these cases account-level objections and define group complaint disparity as the difference between groups' normalized realized objections. Weighted binary cross-entropy (W-BCE) implements the value-per-loss order with one score. Objection penalties modify the ranking, while group multipliers scale those penalties differently by group, tracing tradeoffs between loss capture and complaint disparity. This preserves the value-budgeted ranking structure and makes the cost of reducing contestable blocks explicit. Across public recommendation, insurance, credit, and mortgage datasets, we compare undamped W-BCE with ordinary BCE using yield Gini, an area summary of loss capture versus blocked value. Logarithmic weight damping is evaluated separately. Held-out evaluations measure capture-disparity tradeoffs. Validation-selected group-aware complaint penalties improve complaint closure in some cohorts. A corrected comparison normalizes and enlarges candidate policy banks using validation-only price sweeps and retains all ten applicable sources. The source-level results do not establish a statistically significant average advantage over group-blind pricing at the fixed minimum retained loss capture. We also compare with blocked-count, blocked-value, and protected-loss parity postprocessors, which do not directly constrain realized objections, and measure objections in candidate-count and loss units.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗