Estimate Level Adjustment For Inference With Proxies Under Random Distribution Shifts
Authors: Steven Wilkins-Reeves, Alexandra N. M. Darmon, Deeksha Sinha
Organizations: Central Applied Science, Meta · New York, NY, USA · Menlo Park, CA, USA
Abstract
In many scientific domains, including experimentation, researchers rely on measurements of proxy outcomes to achieve faster and more frequent reads, especially when the primary outcome of interest is challenging to measure directly. While proxies offer a more readily accessible observation for inference, the ultimate goal is to draw statistical inferences about the primary outcome parameter and proxy data are typically imperfect in some ways. To correct for these imperfections, current statistical inference methods often depend on strict identifying assumptions (such as surrogacy, covariate/label shift, or missingness assumptions). These assumptions can be difficult to validate and may be violated by various additional sources of distribution shift, potentially leading to biased parameter estimates and miscalibrated uncertainty quantification. We introduce an estimate-level framework, inspired by domain adaptation techniques, to empirically calibrate proxy-based inference. This framework models the proxy-primary metric discrepancy as a random effect at the parameter level, estimating its distribution from aggregated historical observations across past domains (e.g., experiments, time periods, or distinct segments). This method avoids the requirement for retaining individual-level response data. Additionally, this adjustment can be layered on top of existing proxy-correction methods (such as prediction-powered inference or importance weighting) to account for additional biases not addressed by those corrections. To manage uncertainty when the number of historical domains is limited, we provide both a method-of-moments estimator and a domain bootstrap procedure. We further validate this approach using publicly available datasets and real-world experiments.
Proxy outcomes (such as short-term behavioral signals, model predictions, or surrogate endpoints) are frequently used in place of primary outcomes that are too slow to mature, rare, or challenging to measure directly. But valid inference on a proxy does not guarantee valid inference on the primary estimate as proxy-based estimates can be systematically biased in ways that are difficult to predict, leading to improperly calibrated confidence intervals. We present proxymate, a framework and open-source Python package for proxy validation and adjustment. proxymate organizes into four levels: The Representativity Level (population validity), the Unit Level (measurement quality), the Estimate Level (decision validity), and the Domain Level (cross-domain transportability). Within each level, proxymate provides diagnostic checks, and targeted adjustment strategies that map specific failures to appropriate corrections. At Meta, proxymate has been adopted by many different use cases, spanning experimentation, prevalence estimation, and monitoring use cases, all facing different proxy challenges (limited human review time, long maturation window of outcomes, low detectability) and showcasing the modularity of the framework. Across all products, proxymate assessed and corrected millions of proxy, primary unit comparisons. It has facilitated launches across multiple work streams including enabling quick decision making on thousands of experiments.
Alexandra N. M. Darmon, Deeksha Sinha, Steve Wilkins-Reeves +1
We propose a unified framework for addressing three key challenges of distribution shift: (1) estimating a model's performance on an unlabeled target domain, (2) explaining the shift by identifying the features responsible, and (3) improving the target domain performance. Our method, Entropic Projection Alignment (EPA), aligns the source distribution to the target by matching carefully selected moments while simultaneously minimising the KL divergence from the source. This formulation yields a unique closed-form solution for importance weights, achieving robustness through implicit variance control. Drawing on domain adaptation theory, we establish that moment matching is sufficient for reliable estimation and adaptation, avoiding the need for full density ratio recovery. Extensive experiments, together with strong theoretical guarantees, demonstrate that EPA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines while offering substantial computational efficiency.
Reweighting source samples to match a target covariate distribution is a standard response to distribution shift when generalizing evidence from one population to another. This strategy is well suited to deterministic, learnable covariate discrepancies, but can be insufficient when source--target population differences also contain changes beyond covariate shift or when estimation of the density-ratio weights is unstable. To address this challenge, we introduce a new model that allows non-systematic changes between two population laws after systematic shifts are accounted for. Such residual shift is modeled as random perturbations to the probability space that cannot be represented in a learnable way. In this way, we separate systematic shifts, treated as bias and corrected by reweighting, from residual random perturbations, treated as distributional uncertainty and handled through dataset pooling. Under pure random perturbations, this principle yields Augmented Inverse Distance Weighting (AIDW), which uses regression augmentation and variance-optimal dataset-level pooling. For mixed shifts, we develop Augmented Inverse Hybrid Weighting (AIHW), which interpolates between AIDW and standard augmented importance weighting. Both methods trade off sampling uncertainty and distributional uncertainty via a \emph{distributional distance} that describes the strength of random perturbations. We establish asymptotic properties of the methods, together with plug-in guidance for choosing tuning parameters and model diagnostic tools. Experiments on three real-world multi-site datasets demonstrate consistent reductions in mean-squared error compared with standard weighting baselines, along with substantially improved empirical coverage in settings where covariate-shift adjustment alone undercovers, showing the robustness of the proposed methods across diverse distribution shift scenarios.