Class-Attribute Priors: Adapting Optimization to Heterogeneity and Fairness Objective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern classification problems exhibit heterogeneities across individual classes: Each class may have unique attributes, such as sample size, label quality, or predictability (easy vs difficult), and variable importance at test-time. Without care, these heterogeneities impede the learning process, most notably, when optimizing fairness objectives. Confirming this, under a gaussian mixture setting, we show that the optimal SVM classifier for balanced accuracy needs to be adaptive to the class attributes. This motivates us to propose CAP: An effective and general method that generates a class-specific learning strategy (e.g.~hyperparameter) based on the attributes of that class. This way, optimization process better adapts to heterogeneities. CAP leads to substantial improvements over the naive approach of assigning separate hyperparameters to each class. We instantiate CAP for loss function design and post-hoc logit adjustment, with emphasis on label-imbalanced problems. We show that CAP is competitive with prior art and its flexibility unlocks clear benefits for fairness objectives beyond balanced accuracy. Finally, we evaluate CAP on problems with label noise as well as weighted test objectives to showcase how CAP can jointly adapt to different heterogeneities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".