When does Subgroup Balance Matter? Predicting Performance Sensitivity from Latent Separability
Organizations: University of Oxford · Imperial College London
Abstract
Unequal representation of demographic groups in training data poses challenges to model generalisation across populations. Standard practice assumes that balancing subgroup representation always optimises performance. However, recent empirical results contradict this assumption: in some cases, imbalanced data distributions actually improve subgroup performance, and in others, subgroup performance is unaffected by the absence of an entire subgroup during training. We propose the latent separation hypothesis, which states that a fine-tuned model's dependence on subgroup representation is determined by the degree of separation between subgroups in the latent space of the pre-trained model. We formalise this hypothesis, provide theoretical analysis, validate it empirically across four vision and language datasets, and present preliminary evidence of a causal role through regularisation experiments. Finally, we show how quantitative analysis of latent subgroup separation can inform practical data collection and balancing decisions when fine-tuning foundation models.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Training strategy | MNIST | MIMIC-CXR | HAM10000 | Civil_comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Even/odd digit | Pleural effusion | Malignant/benign lesion | Comment toxicity | |
| Backbone | 2-layer CNN | DenseNet121 Huang et al. (2016) | ViTB16 Dosovitskiy et al. (2021) | BERTClassifier (uncased) Devlin et al. (2018) |
| Initialisation | None | ImageNet Deng et al. (2009) | ImageNet Deng et al. (2009) | Bookcorpus, Wikipedia (English) |
| 5,000 | 33,237 | 2,000 | 17,920 | |
| 24,000 | 22,353 | 3,184 | 24,000 | |
| 4,000 | 26,590 | 1,000 | 12,243 |
| Dataset | Attribute | Group 0 / 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | Colour | Red / Green | 0.50 | 0.50 / 0.50 |
| Digit value | Below 5 / Over | 0.50 | 0.50 / 0.50 | |
| Random | / | 0.50 | 0.50 / 0.50 | |
| MIMIC-CXR | View Position | Lateral / Frontal | 0.65 | 0.16 / 0.26 |
| Patient Orientation | Recumbent / Erect | 0.77 | 0.35 / 0.20 | |
| Procedure | Portable / Fixed scanner | 0.46 | 0.35 / 0.11 |
| Dataset | Attribute | Loss slope | Balanced Acc slope | AUC slope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIMIC | View Position | -0.027 (0.001) | 0.034 (0.003) | 0.012 (0.001) |
| MIMIC | Patient Orientation | -0.009 (0.001) | 0.013 (0.002) | 0.003 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Procedure | -0.026 (0.001) | 0.026 (0.002) | 0.016 (0.001) |
| MIMIC | Support_Devices | -0.009 (0.001) | 0.010 (0.001) | 0.006 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Gender | -0.003 (0.001) | 0.004 (0.002) | 0.002 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Insurance | -0.002 (0.001) | 0.003 (0.002) | 0.001 (0.000) |
| Dataset | Attribute | Loss slope | Balanced Acc slope | AUC slope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIMIC | View Position | -0.007 (0.001) | 0.001 (0.002) | -0.000 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Patient Orientation | -0.008 (0.001) | -0.002 (0.001) | 0.000 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Procedure | -0.011 (0.001) | 0.014 (0.002) | 0.003 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Support_Devices | -0.005 (0.001) | 0.000 (0.001) | 0.000 (0.001) |
| MIMIC | Gender | -0.000 (0.001) | 0.001 (0.002) | 0.000 (0.000) |
| MIMIC | Insurance | -0.000 (0.001) | 0.000 (0.002) | -0.000 (0.000) |
| Attribute | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0 | 0.000 0.000 | 1.298 0.000 | 3136.744 13745.833 | 2.000 0.964 | 0.302 0.020 |
| Gender | 1 | 278.269 647.492 | 2.000 0.650 | 3002.106 13853.293 | 2.000 1.015 | 0.348 0.019 |
| ViewPosition | 0 | 4.843 6.518 | 0.850 0.387 | 1.523 4.728 | 0.225 1.188 | 0.000 1.388 |
| ViewPosition | 1 | 1.035 0.806 | 0.260 0.336 | 2.175 8.930 | 0.276 1.359 | 0.000 1.609 |
| Dataset | No. of groups | Spearman | -value |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIMIC | 10 | 0.77 | 0.009 |
| HAM10000 | 5 | 0.90 | 0.037 |
| CivilComments | 6 | 0.83 | 0.042 |
| Dataset | Hypothesis | Correlation | -value | Significant ( ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIMIC | Subgroup prevalence | 0.0586 | 0.7955 | False | 22 |
| MIMIC | Subgroup accuracy | 0.5197 | 0.01318 | True | 22 |
| MIMIC | Class imbalance | -0.1906 | 0.3954 | False | 22 |
| HAM10000 | Subgroup prevalence | -0.1027 | 0.7777 | False | 10 |
| HAM10000 | Subgroup accuracy | 0.0616 | 0.8658 | False | 10 |
| HAM10000 | Class imbalance | 0.0261 | 0.9430 | False | 10 |
| Method | TV (mean std) | Overall acc. (mean std) | Subgroup acc. change (mean std) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | |||
| Regularised |