Provably Auditing Ordinary Least Squares in Low Dimensions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Measuring the stability of conclusions derived from Ordinary Least Squares linear regression is critically important, but most metrics either only measure local stability (i.e. against infinitesimal changes in the data), or are only interpretable under statistical assumptions. Recent work proposes a simple, global, finite-sample stability metric: the minimum number of samples that need to be removed so that rerunning the analysis overturns the conclusion, specifically meaning that the sign of a particular coefficient of the estimated regressor changes. However, besides the trivial exponential-time algorithm, the only approach for computing this metric is a greedy heuristic that lacks provable guarantees under reasonable, verifiable assumptions; the heuristic provides a loose upper bound on the stability and also cannot certify lower bounds on it. We show that in the low-dimensional regime where the number of covariates is a constant but the number of samples is large, there are efficient algorithms for provably estimating (a fractional version of) this metric. Applying our algorithms to the Boston Housing dataset, we exhibit regression analyses where we can estimate the stability up to a factor of 3 better than the greedy heuristic, and analyses where we can certify stability to dropping even a majority of the samples.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2022.
Builds on
15 of 57 references.
References · 15
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2016Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,001
- 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
- 2017Certifying Some Distributional Robustness with Principled Adversarial Trainingcited by 337
- 2018Learning Models with Uniform Performance via Distributionally Robust Optimizationcited by 335
- 2019On the Accuracy of Influence Functions for Measuring Group Effectscited by 147
- 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
- 2018Sever: A Robust Meta-Algorithm for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 125
- 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 91
- 2020Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shiftcited by 82
- 2018Efficient Algorithms for Outlier-Robust Regressioncited by 72
- 2018A Swiss Army Infinitesimal Jackknifecited by 54
3 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2024Most Influential Subset Selection: Challenges, Promises, and Beyondcited by 32
- 2025Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankingscited by 8
- 2023Towards Practical Robustness Auditing for Linear Regressioncited by 6
- 2024Robustness Auditing for Linear Regression: To Singularity and Beyondcited by 6
- 2025Testing Most Influential Setscited by 2
- 2026Finding Most Influential Setscited by 0
- 2026Finding Most Influential Sets4 Jun 2026
- 2025Testing Most Influential Sets23 Oct 2025
- 2025Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings16 Aug 2025
- 2024Robustness Auditing for Linear Regression: To Singularity and Beyond10 Oct 2024
- 2024Most Influential Subset Selection: Challenges, Promises, and Beyond25 Sep 2024
- 2023Towards Practical Robustness Auditing for Linear Regression30 Jul 2023