Logistic Regression Equivalence: A Framework for Comparing Logistic Regression Models Across Populations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13330v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:12:52 GMT
• Title: Logistic Regression Equivalence: A Framework for Comparing Logistic Regression Models Across Populations
• Authors: Guy Ashiri-Prossner, Yuval Benjamini
• Abstract summary: We argue that equivalence testing for a prespecified tolerance level on population differences incentivizes accuracy in the inference. For diagnosis data, we show examples for equivalent and non-equivalent models.
• Score: 4.518012967046983
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper we discuss how to evaluate the differences between fitted logistic regression models across sub-populations. Our motivating example is in studying computerized diagnosis for learning disabilities, where sub-populations based on gender may or may not require separate models. In this context, significance tests for hypotheses of no difference between populations may provide perverse incentives, as larger variances and smaller samples increase the probability of not-rejecting the null. We argue that equivalence testing for a prespecified tolerance level on population differences incentivizes accuracy in the inference. We develop a cascading set of equivalence tests, in which each test addresses a different aspect of the model: the way the phenomenon is coded in the regression coefficients, the individual predictions in the per example log odds ratio and the overall accuracy in the mean square prediction error. For each equivalence test, we propose a strategy for setting the equivalence thresholds. The large-sample approximations are validated using simulations. For diagnosis data, we show examples for equivalent and non-equivalent models.

Related papers

• Bayesian Federated Inference for regression models based on non-shared multicenter data sets from heterogeneous populations [0.0]
  In a regression model, the sample size must be large enough relative to the number of possible predictors. Pooling data from different data sets collected in different (medical) centers would alleviate this problem, but is often not feasible due to privacy regulation or logistic problems. An alternative route would be to analyze the local data in the centers separately and combine the statistical inference results with the Bayesian Federated Inference (BFI) methodology. The aim of this approach is to compute from the inference results in separate centers what would have been found if the statistical analysis was performed on the combined data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T11:10:27Z)
• Selective Nonparametric Regression via Testing [54.20569354303575]
  We develop an abstention procedure via testing the hypothesis on the value of the conditional variance at a given point. Unlike existing methods, the proposed one allows to account not only for the value of the variance itself but also for the uncertainty of the corresponding variance predictor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T13:04:11Z)
• On the Strong Correlation Between Model Invariance and Generalization [54.812786542023325]
  Generalization captures a model's ability to classify unseen data. Invariance measures consistency of model predictions on transformations of the data. From a dataset-centric view, we find a certain model's accuracy and invariance linearly correlated on different test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-14T17:08:25Z)
• Predicting Out-of-Domain Generalization with Neighborhood Invariance [59.05399533508682]
  We propose a measure of a classifier's output invariance in a local transformation neighborhood. Our measure is simple to calculate, does not depend on the test point's true label, and can be applied even in out-of-domain (OOD) settings. In experiments on benchmarks in image classification, sentiment analysis, and natural language inference, we demonstrate a strong and robust correlation between our measure and actual OOD generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T14:55:16Z)
• Benign-Overfitting in Conditional Average Treatment Effect Prediction with Linear Regression [14.493176427999028]
  We study the benign overfitting theory in the prediction of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) with linear regression models. We show that the T-learner fails to achieve the consistency except the random assignment, while the IPW-learner converges the risk to zero if the propensity score is known.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-10T18:51:52Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)
• A Causal Direction Test for Heterogeneous Populations [10.653162005300608]
  Most causal models assume a single homogeneous population, an assumption that may fail to hold in many applications. We show that when the homogeneity assumption is violated, causal models developed based on such assumption can fail to identify the correct causal direction. We propose an adjustment to a commonly used causal direction test statistic by using a $k$-means type clustering algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T18:59:14Z)
• Achieving Equalized Odds by Resampling Sensitive Attributes [13.114114427206678]
  We present a flexible framework for learning predictive models that approximately satisfy the equalized odds notion of fairness. This differentiable functional is used as a penalty driving the model parameters towards equalized odds. We develop a formal hypothesis test to detect whether a prediction rule violates this property, the first such test in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T00:18:34Z)
• Learning from Aggregate Observations [82.44304647051243]
  We study the problem of learning from aggregate observations where supervision signals are given to sets of instances. We present a general probabilistic framework that accommodates a variety of aggregate observations. Simple maximum likelihood solutions can be applied to various differentiable models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T06:18:50Z)
• Decision-Making with Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes [71.44735417472043]
  We show that a posterior approximation distinct from the variational distribution should be used for making decisions. Motivated by these theoretical results, we propose learning several approximate proposals for the best model. In addition to toy examples, we present a full-fledged case study of single-cell RNA sequencing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-17T19:23:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.