You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Several techniques for domain adaptation have been proposed to account for differences in the distribution of the data used for training and testing. The majority of this work focuses on a binary domain label. Similar problems occur in a scientific context where there may be a continuous family of plausible data generation processes associated to the presence of systematic uncertainties. Robust inference is possible if it is based on a pivot -- a quantity whose distribution does not depend on the unknown values of the nuisance parameters that parametrize this family of data generation processes. In this work, we introduce and derive theoretical results for a training procedure based on adversarial networks for enforcing the pivotal property (or, equivalently, fairness with respect to continuous attributes) on a predictive model. The method includes a hyperparameter to control the trade-off between accuracy and robustness. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach with a toy example and examples from particle physics.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.
Most related work is based on the strong and limiting assumption that @math is a binary random variable (e.g., @math for the source domain, and @math for the target domain). In particular, are all based on the minimization of some form of divergence between the two distributions of @math and @math . For this reason, these works cannot directly be generalized to non-binary or continuous nuisance parameters, both from a practical and theoretical point of view. Notably, [1] enforces fairness through a prejudice regularization term based on empirical estimates of @math . While this approach is in principle sufficient for handling non-binary nuisance parameters @math , it requires accurate empirical estimates of @math for all values @math , which quickly becomes impractical as the cardinality of @math increases. By contrast, our approach models the conditional dependence through an adversarial network, which allows for generalization without necessarily requiring a growing number of training examples.