Falsifying Predictive Algorithm

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17146v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:57:43 GMT
• Title: Falsifying Predictive Algorithm
• Authors: Amanda Coston,
• Abstract summary: Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended.<n>We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity.
• Score: 2.4006298200630343
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended. These exposes highlight the need to identify when algorithms predict unintended quantities - ideally before deploying them into consequential settings. We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity: the requirement that an algorithm predict intended outcomes better than impermissible ones. Drawing on falsification practices from causal inference, econometrics, and psychometrics, our framework compares calibrated prediction losses across outcomes to assess whether the algorithm exhibits discriminant validity with respect to a specified impermissible proxy. In settings where the target outcome is difficult to observe, multiple permissible proxy outcomes may be available; our framework accommodates both this setting and the case with a single permissible proxy. Throughout we use nonparametric hypothesis testing methods that make minimal assumptions on the data-generating process. We illustrate the method in an admissions setting, where the framework establishes discriminant validity with respect to gender but fails to establish discriminant validity with respect to race. This demonstrates how falsification can serve as an early validity check, prior to fairness or robustness analyses. We also provide analysis in a criminal justice setting, where we highlight the limitations of our framework and emphasize the need for complementary approaches to assess other aspects of construct validity and external validity.

Related papers

• Towards Anytime-Valid Statistical Watermarking [63.02116925616554]
  We develop the first e-value-based watermarking framework, Anchored E-Watermarking, that unifies optimal sampling with anytime-valid inference.<n>Our framework can significantly enhance sample efficiency, reducing the average token budget required for detection by 13-15% relative to state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:32:26Z)
• Detecting Statistically Significant Fairness Violations in Recidivism Forecasting Algorithms [0.0]
  This paper introduces statistical tests that can be used to identify statistically significant violations of fairness metrics.<n>We demonstrate this approach by testing recidivism forecasting algorithms trained on data from the National Institute of Justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T17:15:23Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• Adaptive Sentencing Prediction with Guaranteed Accuracy and Legal Interpretability [7.737114256060652]
  We propose a novel Saturated Mechanistic Sentencing (SMS) model, which provides inherent legal interpretability.<n>We also introduce the corresponding Least Momentum Mean Squares (MLMS) adaptive algorithm for this model.<n>We provide a best possible upper bound for the prediction accuracy by the best predictor designed in the known parameters case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T07:06:00Z)
• Targeted Learning for Data Fairness [52.59573714151884]
  We expand fairness inference by evaluating fairness in the data generating process itself.<n>We derive estimators demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information.<n>To validate our approach, we perform several simulations and apply our estimators to real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:51:28Z)
• Inference for an Algorithmic Fairness-Accuracy Frontier [0.7743097066308449]
  We propose a debiased machine learning estimator for the fairness-accuracy frontier.<n>We derive its distribution and propose inference methods to test key hypotheses in the fairness literature.<n>We show that our approach yields alternative algorithms that lie on the fairness-accuracy frontier, offering improvements along both dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T00:56:09Z)
• Bounding Counterfactuals under Selection Bias [60.55840896782637]
  We propose a first algorithm to address both identifiable and unidentifiable queries. We prove that, in spite of the missingness induced by the selection bias, the likelihood of the available data is unimodal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-26T10:33:10Z)
• A Sandbox Tool to Bias(Stress)-Test Fairness Algorithms [19.86635585740634]
  We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T16:12:19Z)
• A Low Rank Promoting Prior for Unsupervised Contrastive Learning [108.91406719395417]
  We construct a novel probabilistic graphical model that effectively incorporates the low rank promoting prior into the framework of contrastive learning. Our hypothesis explicitly requires that all the samples belonging to the same instance class lie on the same subspace with small dimension. Empirical evidences show that the proposed algorithm clearly surpasses the state-of-the-art approaches on multiple benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-05T15:58:25Z)
• Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding [74.90756694584839]
  We study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-30T15:49:05Z)
• 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)
• Fairness Measures for Regression via Probabilistic Classification [0.0]
  Algorithmic fairness involves expressing notions such as equity, or reasonable treatment, as quantifiable measures that a machine learning algorithm can optimise. This is in part because classification fairness measures are easily computed by comparing the rates of outcomes, leading to behaviours such as ensuring the same fraction of eligible men are selected as eligible women. But such measures are computationally difficult to generalise to the continuous regression setting for problems such as pricing, or allocating payments. For the regression setting we introduce tractable approximations of the independence, separation and sufficiency criteria by observing that they factorise as ratios of different conditional probabilities of the protected attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-16T21:53:26Z)

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.