Inferential Evaluation of Surrogate-Derived Models under Covariate Shift
Authors: Longtian Shi, Molei Liu, Doudou Zhou
Organizations: Department of Statistics and Data Science, National University of Singapore · Department of Biostatistics, Peking University Health Science Center, Peking University, Beijing, China · Beijing International Center for Mathematical Research, Peking University, Beijing, China
In transfer-learning settings, a model derived from abundant surrogate labels may be deployed in a target population where gold-standard outcomes are unobserved. Evaluating its target performance is essential for determining whether decisions based on the model remain reliable, yet it is difficult when gold labels are scarce, and covariate distributions differ across data sources. We study a three-sample setting with a small gold-labeled source, a larger surrogate-labeled source, and an unlabeled target. Under conditional transportability, we evaluate the surrogate-derived model against the latent gold-standard outcome in the target population. We propose cross-fitted estimators that transport information from the two labeled sources through source-specific density ratios. We also combine outcome-regression augmentation with a kernel correction for estimating the model near a threshold, accounting for uncertainty from all three samples. We establish asymptotically linear inference for TPR and FPR, consistency and pointwise inference for the ROC curve, and asymptotically normal inference for AUC. Simulations assess bias, coverage, and sensitivity to bandwidth and relative sample sizes. A retrospective temporal validation on Chatbot Arena and a semi-synthetic ACS-Income study provide validation in real-world AI applications.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three-population setting. Gold and surrogate labels are observed in separate sources; only covariates are observed in the target population. Each source may have its own covariate shift relative to the target (dashed arrows).
Figure 2: Study 1 Standardized TPR errors at c=0.5 . Dashed lines mark ±1.96 , and outliers are shown.
Figure 3: Study 3 empirical 95% coverage over 500 replications. Coverage, rather than the magnitude of the performance metric, is the target of this comparison.
Figure 4: Natural temporal shift in Chatbot Arena. Each stacked bar is the distribution of candidate-model family appearances within a fixed cohort; quantitative overlap diagnostics appear in Appendix Figure F.1 .
Figure 5: ACS gold-label validation for the spline-3 score. Only Full carries the proposed three-source interval; the red line and band evaluate a different pooled cross-fitted finite-score object after the Target-outcome reveal. The paired Full-minus-human contrast is 0.028 [0.004, 0.051].
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
DGP
Source
Domain AUC
Mean wt.
Mean max.
ESS
DGP-A
HL
0.689
1.002
7.800
2462
DGP-A
AL
0.688
1.001
7.759
9913
DGP-B
HL
0.713
1.000
8.814
2096
DGP-B
AL
0.659
1.000
6.563
11447
Appendix
Table E.1: Study 3 cross-fitted density-ratio diagnostics, averaged over 500 replications. ESS is (∑iwi)2/∑iwi2 .
Design
DGP-A
DGP-B
P1
0.0295/0.0281
0.0323/0.0292
P2
0.0208/0.0205
0.0233/0.0216
P3
0.0155/0.0151
0.0161/0.0161
HL 0.25k
0.0354/0.0343
0.0333/0.0328
HL 2k
0.0188/0.0175
0.0214/0.0194
AL 1k
0.0304/0.0271
0.0385/0.0301
Appendix
Table E.2: Study 1 TPR empirical SD/mean analytical SE at c=0.5 for the proposed Full estimator. Non-proportional designs change one P2 sample size at a time.
Figure E.1: Study 1 standardized FPR errors at c=0.5 . Full is the proposed estimator; IW-HL is importance-weighted gold-label validation; TSC is transported score calibration. Colors distinguish DGPs. HL, AL, and T denote the gold-labeled, surrogate-labeled, and target samples; dashed lines mark ±1.96 , and outliers are shown.
Figure E.2: Study 2 standardized errors at c=0.5 . The five Full groups vary C ; the h -free IW-HL and TSC references are shown once. Colors distinguish DGPs, hatches distinguish methods, dashed lines mark ±1.96 , and outliers are shown.
Figure E.3: Normal Q–Q diagnostics for the proposed Full estimator under DGP-A at P2. TPR and FPR use c=0.5 , ROC uses u=0.2 , and AUC is the scalar one-step estimator.
Study
Target
Coordinate
Coverage range
SE/SD range
Worst
Study 1
TPR
c=0.2
.896–.944
.826–1.029
B/AL 1k (.896)
Study 1
FPR
c=0.2
.662–.930
.496–.916
B/AL 1k (.662)
Study 1
TPR
c=0.5
.872–.952
.782–1.014
B/AL 1k (.872)
Study 1
FPR
c=0.5
.914–.960
.883–1.022
A/AL 1k (.914)
Study 2
TPR
c=0.2
.904–.946
.876–1.007
B/ C=2 (.904)
Study 2
FPR
c=0.2
.580–.928
.434–.952
B/ C=2 (.580)
Appendix
Table E.3: Empirical coverage and SE/SD of the proposed Full construction over 500 replications. Study 3 rows select the Full ablation member; HGB rows use the same estimator with histogram-gradient-boosting nuisances. “Worst” gives the configuration attaining minimum coverage.
Target/design
Method
Cells
Mean ∣ bias ∣
Mean RMSE
Mean SE/SD
Coverage
S1 TPR(.5), all
Full
20
.0020
.0250
.950
.934 [.872,.952]
IW-HL
20
.0041
.0284
.821
.879 [.668,.930]
TSC
20
.0056
.0230
.701
.805 [.520,.928]
S1 FPR(.5), all
Full
20
.0020
.0217
.975
.941 [.914,.960]
IW-HL
20
.0030
.0238
.842
.887 [.686,.948]
TSC
20
.0031
.0192
.770
.850 [.600,.920]
Appendix
Table E.4: Comparison with fixed-score transported validation. Entries average over the stated design-by-DGP cells. Coverage is mean [minimum, maximum]. Study 2 compares the default Full choice C=1 with the h -free comparators.
DGP
Estimator
TPR(.5)
FPR(.5)
ROC(.1)
AUC
DGP-A
Plug-in
−.15/.010/.002/.260
−.02/.010/.002/.258
−.09/.012/.001/.112
−.08/.008/<.001/.100
DGP-A
HL-only
−.18/.012/.010/.904
+.02/.012/.010/.892
+.02/.018/.017/.940
−.05/.010/.010/.942
DGP-A
AL-only
−.09/.016/.014/.936
−.14/.016/.015/.926
+.13/.014/.006/.616
+.03/.008/.001/.298
DGP-A
Full
−.12/.017/.017/.956
−.10/.017/.018/.950
+.25/.019/.018/.938
+.06/.010/.010/.926
DGP-A
Oracle nuis.
−.15/.017/.017/.960
−.08/.017/.018/.948
+.16/.018/.018/.934
−.01/.010/.010/.946
DGP-B
Plug-in
+.28/.012/.002/.296
+.17/.007/.001/.234
−.03/.013/.001/.138
−.13/.009/.001/.104
Appendix
Table E.5: Unified Study 3 ablation. Entries are bias (percentage points)/empirical SD/mean SE/95% coverage.
Figure E.4: Confirmed P4 Study 3 diagnostics at c=0.5 , u=0.1 , and C=0.5 . The top row reports bias in percentage points; the bottom row reports mean analytical SE divided by empirical SD.
Figure E.5: Study 4 standardized AUC and fixed- u ROC errors.
Figure E.6: Regularized full quadratic-dictionary diagnostic under DGP-D over 500 replications. The 4× P2 design is (nHL,nAL,nT)=(4000,16000,80000) . Gray coverage bands show the Monte Carlo 95% neighborhood of nominal 0.95 coverage; dashed lines mark the ideal value in each panel. All coordinates, including the weaker lower-threshold results, are displayed.
Cohort
Calendar window
n
Visible labels
HL
Apr. 24–May 7, 2023
2,816
X,Y
AL
May 7–26, 2023
3,590
X,S
Target
May 26–Jun. 26, 2023
1,499
X before reveal
Appendix
Table F.1: Fixed temporal cohorts. Intervals are UTC and follow the left-closed, right-open convention except at the observed endpoint.
Figure F.1: Outcome-blind temporal-shift diagnostics. (a) Candidate-family shares across the fixed calendar cohorts. (b) OOF domain discrimination and uncapped effective-sample-size fractions for each transport. Domain AUC measures separability and is not a positivity proof. These diagnostics show that the calendar cohorts differ in observed covariates without imposed tilting; they do not assess estimator accuracy.
Diagnostic
HL → T
AL → T
Domain AUC
0.802
0.628
Uncapped ESS
427.9
2,356.7
ESS/source n
0.152
0.656
Weight p99
9.43
3.69
Maximum weight
55.12
7.40
Guard fraction
0.000
0.000
Appendix
Table F.2: Outcome-blind overlap diagnostics for the semantic-plus-metadata density design. Primary ratios are uncapped; caps are sensitivities only.
Object
AUC [95% interval]
A. Population-score estimation
Outcome regression (g-computation)
0.796 [0.786,0.807]
Importance-weighted human-label score
0.841 [0.803,0.878]
Human-label correction only
0.825 [0.793,0.857]
LLM-label correction only
0.819 [0.805,0.833]
Full three-source (ours)
0.848 [0.814,0.881]
Appendix
Table F.3: Chatbot Arena scalar-AUC results. Panel A concerns the population surrogate-score estimand. Panel B evaluates frozen finite-sample scores against human Target outcomes revealed after estimation. The panels have different estimands and should not be read as a method ranking.
Component
Diagnostic
Value/status
m^Y (HL)
OOF AUC / Brier
0.814 / 0.178
m^S (AL)
OOF AUC / Brier
0.869 / 0.149
m^S
Swap-complement error
1.5×10−16
Target score
Unique / n ; max. atom
1,499/1,499 / 0.00067
ROC(.10)
Local count / kernel ESS
734 / 1,029.0
ROC(.15)
Local count / kernel ESS
632 / 905.9
Appendix
Table F.4: Nuisance and local-information diagnostics. Pointwise inference is reported only when every stated criterion is satisfied.
Comparison
Estimate
95% interval
Full − outcome regression
0.051
[0.020,0.083]
Full − human-label correction
0.023
[0.014,0.031]
All-LLM-label deployment − cross-fitted score
0.002
[-0.002,0.007]
Cross-fitted score − Full
−0.038
[-0.061,-0.016]
All-LLM-label deployment − Full
−0.036
[-0.058,-0.014]
Appendix
Table F.5: Paired comparisons and cross-estimand discrepancies. Analytic population-model comparisons and conditional target-only bootstrap comparisons have different uncertainty scopes.
Figure F.2: Low-FPR target ROC results. Solid curves are the two frozen finite-score empirical validations; square markers and error bars are the Full population-model estimates, for which all stated pointwise diagnostics were satisfied. The figure checks operating-point scale and behavior, but the curves and markers target different estimands and therefore do not rank methods or measure bias.
Figure F.3: Prespecified scalar-AUC sensitivities for the Full estimator. The uncapped analysis is primary; the capped-weight and pilot-bandwidth results are sensitivity analyses specified before Target reveal. Their stability concerns numerical sensitivity only and does not establish identification or transportability.
Cohort
n
Mean age
Age >45
Label prevalence
HL
447
50.79
75.6%
227/447=0.508
AL
552
35.78
15.4%
244/552=0.442
Target
186,193
42.93
43.8%
81,674/186,193=0.4387
Appendix
Table F.6: ACS analytical cohorts after opposing age-biased sampling.
Table F.8: ACS-Income estimates using the cross-fitted spline-3 logistic score. Full uses the proposed three-source analytic interval under the stated regularity conditions. CF values evaluate a different finite-sample score against revealed Target outcomes.
Figure F.4: Complete ACS comparison for the spline-3 score. Gray, orange, and blue denote the plug-in, human-correction-only, and Full estimates. Only Full carries the proposed three-source intervals; the ablations are shown as point estimates. The red line and band evaluate pooled cross-fitted finite-sample scores after Target-outcome reveal and do not represent population-score truth. Full is descriptively closer than the human-correction-only ablation at all four reported metrics.
Learner
AL log loss
Full
Human corr.
CF validation
Full − Human [95% interval]
Spline-3 logistic
0.2966
0.8663
0.8383
0.8549
0.0280 [0.0044, 0.0515]
Elastic-net logistic
0.2992
0.8632
0.8405
0.8543
0.0226 [0.0034, 0.0419]
Spline-5 logistic
0.3059
0.8638
0.8302
0.8517
0.0336 [0.0098, 0.0573]
Calibrated RBF-SVC
0.3164
0.8618
0.8307
0.8486
0.0311 [0.0112, 0.0511]
Ridge logistic
0.3178
0.8616
0.8354
0.8493
0.0261 [0.0058, 0.0464]
Calibrated quadratic-SVC
0.3331
0.8745
0.8394
0.8468
0.0351 [0.0125, 0.0577]
Appendix
Table F.9: Post-reveal exploratory ACS surrogate-learner sensitivity. Learners are ordered by AL out-of-fold log loss. The paired intervals concern Full minus the human-correction-only ablation for the same learner; they are not simultaneous confidence intervals or a direct ranking of estimator accuracy.
Figure F.5: Paired Full-minus-human-correction AUC contrasts across the six ACS surrogate learners, ordered by AL out-of-fold log loss. Bars are learner-specific 95% intervals; all remain above zero. The intervals are learner-specific and do not provide an inferential ranking of learner accuracy.
Understanding how a prediction model will perform in a new environment before deployment is essential to preventing harm when algorithms inform decision-making. Two common sources of model performance degradation are (i) covariate shift, where the target covariate distribution differs from the source, and (ii) selective labels, where the observability of outcomes depends on historical decisions. We study pre-deployment model evaluation under the joint presence of covariate shift and labeling of outcomes selectively based on observed features. In particular, we present a double machine learning procedure for estimating the target risk of an arbitrary black-box prediction model under a general loss function. We show identification of this estimand under standard assumptions and derive a bias-corrected estimator based on the influence function of the target risk. Finally, we evaluate our estimator through experiments using the eICU electronic health records database, showing that it tracks the true target risk more accurately than methods that address either selective labels or covariate shift alone, as well as baselines that combine standard plug-in approaches.
Annie Ulichney, Amanda Coston
Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley
Conformal prediction converts point predictions into set-valued predictions with coverage guarantees under exchangeability between calibration and deployment data. We study conformal calibration transfer, where this requirement fails because labeled calibration is available only in a source space, while prediction sets are needed in a target space linked to the source through unlabeled paired observations (e.g., paired modalities or sensor changes). We propose Transported Conformal Calibration (TCC): we transport labeled source calibration into the target space using the paired data, and then correct residual post-transport mismatch using only unlabeled target inputs. We instantiate this correction with two complementary methods: TCC-KS, which uses a label-free uncertainty surrogate to detect mismatch and adjust calibration conservatively, and weighted-TCC, which reweights transported calibration toward the target domain for improved efficiency when weights are stable. We provide finite-sample target-domain coverage guarantees that adapt to an observable measure of mismatch. Across CIFAR-100-C, Tiny-ImageNet-C, and SEN12MS, we show reliable target-domain coverage transfer without labeled target calibration data, with label-free diagnostics that predict when correction is needed.
Achref Doula
Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany · Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Randomized controlled trials often do not represent the populations where decisions are made, and covariate shift across studies can invalidate standard IPD meta-analysis and transport estimators. We propose a placebo-anchored transport framework that treats source-trial outcomes as abundant proxy signals and target-trial placebo outcomes as scarce, high-fidelity gold labels to calibrate baseline risk. A low-complexity (sparse) correction anchors proxy outcome models to the target population, and the anchored models are embedded in a cross-fitted doubly robust learner, yielding a Neyman-orthogonal, target-site doubly robust estimator for patient-level heterogeneous treatment effects when target treated outcomes are available. We distinguish two regimes: in connected targets (with a treated arm), the method yields target-identified effect estimates; in disconnected targets (placebo-only), it reduces to a principled screen--then--transport procedure under explicit working-model transport assumptions. Experiments on synthetic data and a semi-synthetic IHDP benchmark evaluate pointwise CATE accuracy, ATE error, ranking quality for targeting, decision-theoretic policy regret, and calibration. Across connected settings, the proposed method is best or near-best and improves substantially over proxy-only, target-only, and transport baselines at small target sample sizes; in disconnected settings, it retains strong ranking performance for targeting while pointwise accuracy depends on the strength of the working transport condition.
Zilong Wang, Ali Abdeen, Turgay Ayer
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA