A Practical Upper Bound on Selection Bias Effects in Medical Prediction Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00563v1
• Date: Sat, 30 May 2026 06:33:57 GMT
• Title: A Practical Upper Bound on Selection Bias Effects in Medical Prediction Models
• Abstract summary: Poor model generalization may lead to real harm, particularly in high-risk settings such as healthcare.<n>Existing methods for predicting model performance rely on unrealistic access to the target distribution or knowledge of the selection mechanism causing bias.<n>We propose a novel upper bound on the worst-case model performance on the target population under the realistic setting.
• Score: 3.7592636397874393
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Selection bias is a common and often unavoidable aspect of real-world data that challenges the generalizability of machine learning models. When models trained on biased data are deployed in the broader target population, poor model generalization may lead to real harm, particularly in high-risk settings such as healthcare. This risk highlights the need for practitioners to reliably assess model generalizability prior to deployment. However, existing methods for predicting model performance rely on unrealistic access to the target distribution or knowledge of the selection mechanism causing bias. To address these limitations, we propose a novel upper bound on the worst-case model performance on the target population under the realistic setting where the selection mechanism and the target population data are only partially observed. We demonstrate the validity and practical utility of our method through experiments on fully synthetic data, semi-synthetic data derived from the All of Us Research Program, and real-world selection bias in MIMIC-IV. Our work offers a principled and practical tool to estimate the impact of selection bias in an otherwise intractable setting, thereby enabling practitioners to build safer and more generalizable models in healthcare and beyond.

Related papers

• Detecting Prefix Bias in LLM-based Reward Models [4.596249232904721]
  We introduce novel methods to detect and evaluate prefix bias in reward models trained on preference datasets.<n>We leverage these metrics to reveal significant biases in preference models across racial and gender dimensions.<n>Our findings highlight the critical need for bias-aware dataset design and evaluation in developing fair and reliable reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T21:50:03Z)
• Metric-DST: Mitigating Selection Bias Through Diversity-Guided Semi-Supervised Metric Learning [0.0]
  Semi-supervised learning strategies like self-training can mitigate selection bias by incorporating unlabeled data into model training.<n>We propose Metric-DST, a diversity-guided self-training strategy that leverages metric learning and its implicit embedding space to counter confidence-based bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T15:29:42Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• Causality and Independence Enhancement for Biased Node Classification [56.38828085943763]
  We propose a novel Causality and Independence Enhancement (CIE) framework, applicable to various graph neural networks (GNNs) Our approach estimates causal and spurious features at the node representation level and mitigates the influence of spurious correlations. Our approach CIE not only significantly enhances the performance of GNNs but outperforms state-of-the-art debiased node classification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T13:56:24Z)
• A roadmap to fair and trustworthy prediction model validation in healthcare [2.476158303361112]
  A prediction model is most useful if it generalizes beyond the development data. We propose a roadmap that facilitates the development and application of reliable, fair, and trustworthy artificial intelligence prediction models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T04:24:19Z)
• Consistent Range Approximation for Fair Predictive Modeling [10.613912061919775]
  The framework builds predictive models that are certifiably fair on the target population, regardless of the availability of external data during training. The framework's efficacy is demonstrated through evaluations on real data, showing substantial improvement over existing state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T08:27:49Z)
• Synthetic Model Combination: An Instance-wise Approach to Unsupervised Ensemble Learning [92.89846887298852]
  Consider making a prediction over new test data without any opportunity to learn from a training set of labelled data. Give access to a set of expert models and their predictions alongside some limited information about the dataset used to train them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T10:20:31Z)
• Model Selection's Disparate Impact in Real-World Deep Learning Applications [3.924854655504237]
  Algorithmic fairness has emphasized the role of biased data in automated decision outcomes. We contend that one source of such bias, human preferences in model selection, remains under-explored in terms of its role in disparate impact across demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T16:37:01Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)
• Beyond Individualized Recourse: Interpretable and Interactive Summaries of Actionable Recourses [14.626432428431594]
  We propose a novel model framework called Actionable Recourse agnostic (AReS) to construct global counterfactual explanations. We formulate a novel objective which simultaneously optimize for correctness of the recourses and interpretability of the explanations. Our framework can provide decision makers with a comprehensive overview of recourses corresponding to any black box model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-15T15:14:08Z)

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.