Practical Guide for Causal Pathways and Sub-group Disparity Analysis
因果路径与子群差异分析的实用指南AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要明确采用观察性数据的因果分解、路径分析和因果差异异质性评估。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
因果路径与子群差异分析的实用指南
- 研究问题
- 如何在观察性数据中分解敏感属性与结局之间的因果路径，并识别差异影响更强、机器学习分类误差更大的具体子群？
- 方法与思路
- 作者结合因果分解与异质性评估，以种族为敏感属性开展两步分析，并在两个数据集上考察子群差异和分类误差的联系。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，该方法有助于拆解差异对结局的影响；示例中受差异影响最大的子群也有最大分类误差，仅按敏感属性分组并不充分。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对敏感属性的因果解释、路径分解目标与识别条件，以及子群发现和误差评估是否使用独立数据、是否考虑选择不确定性。
- 阅读边界
- 这是 arXiv 预印本，同行评审与期刊接收均未核实；摘要未说明因果图、混杂控制和分解假设，两个数据集的关联不能保证普遍成立。
原文摘要
In this study, we introduce the application of causal disparity analysis to unveil intricate relationships and causal pathways between sensitive attributes and the targeted outcomes within real-world observational data. Our methodology involves employing causal decomposition analysis to quantify and examine the causal interplay between sensitive attributes and outcomes. We also emphasize the significance of integrating heterogeneity assessment in causal disparity analysis to gain deeper insights into the impact of sensitive attributes within specific sub-groups on outcomes. Our two-step investigation focuses on datasets where race serves as the sensitive attribute. The results on two datasets indicate the benefit of leveraging causal analysis and heterogeneity assessment not only for quantifying biases in the data but also for disentangling their influences on outcomes. We demonstrate that the sub-groups identified by our approach to be affected the most by disparities are the ones with the largest ML classification errors. We also show that grouping the data only based on a sensitive attribute is not enough, and through these analyses, we can find sub-groups that are directly affected by disparities. We hope that our findings will encourage the adoption of such methodologies in future ethical AI practices and bias audits, fostering a more equitable and fair technological landscape.