No problem, I edited and it looks a lot better now.
With that cleared up I do want to get back to the root of this thread, because it’s genuinely weird that the FairBot pseudocode in the paper has a branch where it says “if there’s no proof, return D”. But it’s getting late here so I’ll have to do that another day.
Yes, that makes sense! Thanks for explaining.
I think it would have made more sense to me if the GL derivation was written as
No problem, I edited and it looks a lot better now.
With that cleared up I do want to get back to the root of this thread, because it’s genuinely weird that the FairBot pseudocode in the paper has a branch where it says “if there’s no proof, return D”. But it’s getting late here so I’ll have to do that another day.