Hierarchical Bayesian Models to Mitigate Systematic Disparities in Prediction with Proxy Outcomes (2403.00639v2)
Abstract: Label bias occurs when the outcome of interest is not directly observable and instead, modeling is performed with proxy labels. When the difference between the true outcome and the proxy label is correlated with predictors, this can yield systematic disparities in predictions for different groups of interest. We propose Bayesian hierarchical measurement models to address these issues. When strong prior information about the measurement process is available, our approach improves accuracy and helps with algorithmic fairness. If prior knowledge is limited, our approach allows assessment of the sensitivity of predictions to the unknown specifications of the measurement process. This can help practitioners gauge if enough substantive information is available to guarantee the desired accuracy and avoid disparate predictions when using proxy outcomes. We demonstrate our approach through practical examples.
- Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3):529–546.
- On exploring the “dark figure” of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374:1–15.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort, 1979–2016 (rounds 1–27).
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). National Diabetes Statistics Report, https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.html.
- Reevaluating the role of race and ethnicity in diabetes screening. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10220.
- The measure and mismeasure of fairness. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(312):1–117.
- Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 326(8):736–743.
- Douglas, J. D. (1967). Social Meanings of Suicide. Princeton University Press.
- Screening for diabetes and prediabetes and their prediction. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 50(3):369–385.
- Fairness through awareness. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3913.
- Undiagnosed diabetes in U.S. adults: Prevalence and trends. Diabetes Care, 45(9):1994–2002.
- Bayesian Data Analysis, third edition. CRC Press.
- Beyond subjective and objective in statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 180(4):967–1033.
- Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477):359–378.
- Combatting police discrimination in the age of big data. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(2):181–232.
- Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02413.
- Hinton, E. K. (2016). From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America. Harvard University Press.
- Identifying and correcting label bias in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, page 702–712.
- Testing causal theories with learned proxies. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1):419–441.
- Predicting the 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases and its relation to healthy diet indicator in Iranian military personnel. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 21(1):419.
- Decision-making under miscalibration. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09852.
- Stan Development Team (2023). Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual, version 2.33.
- Starr, P. (1987). The Sociology of Official Statistics, pages 7–58. Russell Sage Foundation.
- Calibration of risk prediction models: impact on decision-analytic performance. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 35(2):162–169.
- Fair classification with group-dependent label noise. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, page 526–536. arXiv:2011.00379 [cs].
- Risk scores, label bias, and everything but the kitchen sink. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12638.
Sponsor
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.