Prevalence calibration as shortcut mitigation

Shortcut mitigation strategies commonly rely on training data annotations, group-balanced held-out data or the presence of all groups, i.e., all combinations of (spurious) attributes and classes, in the training data. However, these requirements are rarely met in practice. We instead propose a method for targeted model analysis to identify a small set of instances in which the model relies on spurious attributes. Using that set and following ``this feature should not be used for prediction'' reasoning, we identify highly relevant neurons in an intermediate layer and regularize their impact. This ensures that models learn to depend on informative features rather than being right for the wrong reasons, thereby improving robustness without requiring additional balanced held-out data or annotations.

Estimating the prevalence of a category in a population using imperfect measurement devices (diagnostic tests, classifiers, or large language models) is fundamental to science, public health, and online trust and safety. Standard approaches correct for known device error rates but assume these rates remain stable across populations. We show this assumption fails under covariate shift and that multicalibration, which enforces calibration conditional on the input features rather than just on average, is sufficient for unbiased prevalence estimation under such shift. Standard calibration and quantification methods fail to provide this guarantee. Our work connects recent theoretical work on fairness to a longstanding measurement problem spanning nearly all academic disciplines. A simulation confirms that standard methods exhibit bias growing with shift magnitude, while a multicalibrated estimator maintains near-zero bias. While we focus the discussion mostly on LLMs, our theoretical results apply to any classification model. Two empirical applications -- estimating employment prevalence across U.S. states using the American Community Survey, and classifying political texts across four countries using an LLM -- demonstrate that multicalibration substantially reduces bias in practice, while highlighting that calibration data should cover the key feature dimensions along which target populations may differ.

Fairness in toxicity classification involves three integrated axes: ranking, calibration, and abstention. Training-time interventions and post-hoc safety mechanisms cannot be evaluated independently because the former determines the efficacy of the latter. We compare Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM), instance-level reweighting, and Group DRO across these axes, combined with temperature scaling, confidence-based abstention, and per-identity threshold optimization. Evaluation uses subgroup AUC, BPSN/BNSP AUC, error gaps, and per-subgroup Expected Calibration Error (ECE) with bootstrap CIs ($n = 1000$). We report four findings. (1) Calibration disparity is a hidden fairness violation. ERM has near-perfect aggregate calibration ($0.013$) but is significantly miscalibrated across all identity subgroups ($+0.029$ to $+0.134$). (2) Training interventions reshape rather than eliminate disparity. Reweighted ERM improves ranking (BPSN AUC $+0.06$ to $+0.12$) but worsens the calibration-fairness gap by up to $+0.232$. Group DRO eliminates calibration disparity but only by becoming uniformly miscalibrated globally (ECE $0.118$). (3) Post-hoc methods inherit training failure modes. Temperature scaling fails because miscalibration is non-uniform. Confidence-based abstention works under ERM but breaks under DRO, where the risk-coverage curve rises with deferral. (4) Abstention itself is unfair. Confidence-based deferral helps background content far more than identity-mentioning content. We argue that SRAI fairness requires a multi-axis framework: methods that differ only in aggregate ranking can differ sharply in failure modes that determine real-world harm.