Is your model predicting the past?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When does a machine learning model predict the future of individuals and when does it recite patterns that predate the individuals? In this work, we propose a distinction between these two pathways of prediction, supported by theoretical, empirical, and normative arguments. At the center of our proposal is a family of simple and efficient statistical tests, called backward baselines, that demonstrate if, and to what extent, a model recounts the past. Our statistical theory provides guidance for interpreting backward baselines, establishing equivalences between different baselines and familiar statistical concepts. Concretely, we derive a meaningful backward baseline for auditing a prediction system as a black box, given only background variables and the system's predictions. Empirically, we evaluate the framework on different prediction tasks derived from longitudinal panel surveys, demonstrating the ease and effectiveness of incorporating backward baselines into the practice of machine learning.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2022.
Builds on
17 of 42 references.
References · 17
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 318
- 2020An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlationscited by 310
- 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 191
- 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 183
- 2020Outcome Indistinguishabilitycited by 74
- 2020Robustness to Spurious Correlations via Human Annotationscited by 62
5 more
- 2021It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness Benchmarkscited by 61
- 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
- 2022Low-Degree Multicalibrationcited by 44
- 2020In Pursuit of Interpretable, Fair and Accurate Machine Learning for Criminal Recidivism Predictioncited by 42
- 2019ProPublica's COMPAS Data Revisitedcited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
5 papers.
- 2023Difficult Lessons on Social Prediction from Wisconsin Public Schoolscited by 35
- 2023Ground(less) Truth: A Causal Framework for Proxy Labels in Human-Algorithm Decision-Makingcited by 25
- 2024Allocation Requires Prediction Only if Inequality Is Lowcited by 8
- 2025The Hidden Cost of Waiting for Accurate Predictionscited by 1
- 2023Invariant Causal Set Covering Machinescited by 0
- 2025The Hidden Cost of Waiting for Accurate Predictions1 Mar 2025
- 2024Allocation Requires Prediction Only if Inequality Is Low19 Jun 2024
- 2023Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines7 Jun 2023
- 2023Difficult Lessons on Social Prediction from Wisconsin Public Schools13 Apr 2023
- 2023Ground(less) Truth: A Causal Framework for Proxy Labels in Human-Algorithm Decision-Making13 Feb 2023