Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing
Sidhika Balachandar, Nikhil Garg, Emma Pierson
Abstract
Machine learning models are often trained to predict the outcome resulting from a human decision. For example, if a doctor decides to test a patient for disease, will the patient test positive? A challenge is that historical decision-making determines whether the outcome is observed: we only observe test outcomes for patients doctors historically tested. Untested patients, for whom outcomes are unobserved, may differ from tested patients along observed and unobserved dimensions. We propose a Bayesian model class which captures this setting. The purpose of the model is to accurately estimate risk for both tested and untested patients. Estimating this model is challenging due to the wide range of possibilities for untested patients. To address this, we propose two domain constraints which are plausible in health settings: a prevalence constraint, where the overall disease prevalence is known, and an expertise constraint, where the human decision-maker deviates from purely risk-based decision-making only along a constrained feature set. We show theoretically and on synthetic data that domain constraints improve parameter inference. We apply our model to a case study of cancer risk prediction, showing that the model's inferred risk predicts cancer diagnoses, its inferred testing policy captures known public health policies, and it can identify suboptimalities in test allocation. Though our case study is in healthcare, our analysis reveals a general class of domain constraints which can improve model estimation in many settings.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 04b8e525-3898-4a14-b009-7e7be14fa0faCited by top-tier papers2
- Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under ConfoundingLuke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Ken Holstein, Steven WuICML 2024 · 1 citation
- From Biased Selective Labels to Pseudo-Labels: An Expectation-Maximization Framework for Learning from Biased DecisionsTrenton Chang, Jenna WiensICML 2024 · 1 citation
Builds on9
- WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution ShiftsPang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie et al.ICML 2021 · 1,773 citations
- In Search of Lost Domain GeneralizationIshaan Gulrajani, David Lopez-PazICLR 2021 · 1,416 citations
- A Fine-Grained Analysis on Distribution ShiftOlivia Wiles, Sven Gowal, Florian Stimberg, Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi et al.ICLR 2022 · 258 citations
- Extending the WILDS Benchmark for Unsupervised AdaptationShiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tony Lee, Irena Gao et al.ICLR 2022 · 116 citations
- Out-of-Domain Robustness via Targeted AugmentationsIrena Gao, Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori Hashimoto et al.ICML 2023 · 33 citations
Related papers
- Defining Expertise: Applications to Treatment Effect EstimationAlihan Hüyük, Qiyao Wei, Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der SchaarICLR 2024 · 3 citations
- Bayesian Inference for Correlated Human Experts and ClassifiersMarkelle Kelly, Alex James Boyd, Samuel Showalter, Mark Steyvers et al.ICML 2025
- Statistical Inference Under Constrained Selection BiasSantiago Cortes-Gomez, Mateo Dulce-Rubio, Carlos Miguel Patiño, Bryan WilderICML 2024
- Incorporating Interpretable Output Constraints in Bayesian Neural NetworksWanqian Yang, Lars Lorch, Moritz A. Graule, Himabindu Lakkaraju et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 17 citations
- When Machine Learning Gets Personal: Evaluating Prediction and ExplanationLouisa Cornelis, Guillermo Bernardez, Haewon Jeong, Nina MiolaneICLR 2026
