Turning classifier probabilities into hard labels can arbitrarily twist downstream estimates and make advertised confidence intervals misleading; the paper derives an explicit, estimable operator that predicts how coarsening biases coefficients and erodes coverage direction-by-direction, enabling practitioners to audit the damage before reporting results.

Main Finding

Hardening (coarsening) a calibrated multiclass probability vector into a simpler label (e.g., argmax, thresholded or rounded label) generally biases downstream regression coefficients in a directionally uneven way and can severely destroy confidence-interval coverage. The plug-in estimator based on any coarsening h converges to A_h τ, where the coarsening operator is A_h = I + D_h^{-1} E[a_h u^T], with a = p − r(X), a_h = h − E[h | X], u = a − a_h, and D_h = E[a_h a_h^T]. Thus coarsening is harmless exactly when what is discarded (u) is uncorrelated with what is retained (a_h). The same operator determines the asymptotic bias of Wald intervals: reported coverage along a contrast v equals Φ(z − λ_v) − Φ(−z − λ_v), where λ_v is the ratio of the coarsening bias along v to the reported standard error. Because A_h and the reported standard error are computable from observables (p, X, Y), analysts can estimate the distortion and anticipated coverage before publishing intervals.

Key Points

• Model and identifying assumptions
  • Structural conditional mean: E[Y | G, p, X] = μ(X) + τ^T g with constant τ (contrast to reference class).
  • Conditional calibration: E[g | p, X] = p (probability vector is conditionally unbiased for true class).
  • Under these, the observed-data model reduces to a partially linear regression: E[Y | p, X] = μ(X) + τ^T p.
• Identification and spectral geometry
  • Moment identity: E[a R] = M τ with a = p − r(X), R = Y − m(X), and M = E[aa^T].
  • If M nonsingular, τ = M^{-1} E[a R]. If M is singular, only the projection of τ onto range(M) is identified; directions in null(M) are observationally unrestricted (partial identification).
  • Small eigenvalues λ_j of M both weaken identification and inflate asymptotic variance along eigen-directions (variance scales like σ_j^2 / λ_j^2 or intermediate rates).
• Estimation and inference
  • Estimator: ˆτ solves sample analog n^{-1} Σ a_i (R_i − a_i^T τ) = 0 (with m and r estimated by cross-fitting).
  • Full Neyman orthogonality in (m, r) permits double-machine-learning style nuisances.
  • Multivariate CLT: √n(ˆτ − τ) → N(0, Ω) with Ω = M^{-1} Σ M^{-1}, Σ = E[u^2 a a^T], u = R − a^T τ.
  • Semiparametric efficiency: optimal instrument is σ^{-2}(p,X) (p − ˜p(X)), requiring additional nuisance estimation; the unweighted estimator is simpler and orthogonal.
• Coarsening operator and its consequences
  • For any coarsening h(p,X) (including argmax), plim ˆτ_h = A_h τ with A_h = D_h^{-1} C_h, C_h = E[a a_h^T].
  • Equivalently A_h = I + D_h^{-1} E[a_h u^T]. Thus bias arises from covariance between retained and discarded parts of the score residual.
  • Distortion is anisotropic: different contrasts of τ are affected differently; one cannot infer damage to all contrasts from a single observed distortion.
• Coverage loss and diagnostics
  • Wald intervals built on coarsened labels have limiting coverage shifted by the normalized bias λ_v; coverage decreases (can collapse) as reported standard error contracts because λ_v grows relative to it.
  • Both A_h and the reported standard error are identified from observables, so the analyst can forecast (and report) expected coverage before publishing.
• Robustness and sensitivity
  • If calibration deviates by at most δ, bias along eigen-direction v_j is bounded by δ ||τ||_1 λ_j^{-1/2}; small eigenvalues amplify miscalibration effects.
  • Along eigen-directions with λ_j = 0 the model returns to partial identification; the identified set is affine in the null directions.
• Empirical evidence
  • Simulations: argmax coarsening can produce dramatic undercoverage (example: argmax interval 39% narrower and ~1% empirical coverage).
  • Real-data audits: three audits (UCI Adult disparity audit, a large surname-based voter-turnout audit with n = 464,700, and a land-cover audit in the supplement) show direction-specific distortions induced by hard labels.

Data & Methods

• Theoretical framework
  • Observables: i.i.d. (Y, X, p) with p a K-vector (first K coordinates of K+1 multiclass probabilities); latent one-hot g.
  • Core assumptions (see above) convert the latent-class problem into the partially linear regression E[Y | p, X] = μ(X) + τ^T p.
  • Key objects: residualized score a = p − r(X), residual covariance M = E[aa^T], and partial regression moment E[a R] = M τ.
• Coarsening analysis
  • Define a coarsening map h(p,X) (any measurable collapse to same coordinate space or one-hot vertices).
  • Decompose a into retained a_h and discarded u = a − a_h, derive A_h and show plim ˆτ_h = A_h τ.
  • Derive operator form A_h = I + D_h^{-1} E[a_h u^T] and characterize when A_h = I or scalar multiple of I.
• Estimation strategy
  • Use cross-fitting and double-machine-learning-style orthogonal moments with nuisance m and r estimated flexibly (ML methods permitted).
  • Sandwich variance estimation and Wald intervals follow from CLT; directional variances expressed via M's eigen-decomposition.
  • Semiparametric efficiency bound derived via conditional-moment efficiency (requires extra nuisances σ^2(p,X) and ˜p(X)).
• Simulations and audits
  • Simulations explore coverage and anisotropic bias under different coarsenings (argmax, thresholding).
  • Real-data audits: apply methods to (i) UCI Adult (fairness/disparity audit), (ii) voter-turnout audit using surname-based labels (n ≈ 464,700), and (iii) land-cover audit (supplement). Show practical sizes of distortions and directional effects.

Implications for AI Economics

• Beware of hard labels downstream: When classifiers supply probability vectors that are then coarsened to labels before economic analysis, estimated group effects and disparities can be biased and confidence intervals invalid—often dramatically so and in a direction-specific manner.
• Use full calibrated probabilities when possible: Feeding the probability vector p (not an argmax) into the downstream partially linear regression recovers τ under the paper’s assumptions and avoids the coarsening operator bias.
• If coarsening is unavoidable, quantify the distortion before reporting:
  • Compute A_h from (p, X) and estimate A_h τ (and its bias along contrasts of interest).
  • Compute the implied λ_v (bias / reported SE) and report the adjusted expected coverage or warn that intervals are likely anti-conservative.
• Diagnostics and sensitivity:
  • Check the spectrum of M = E[(p − r(X))(p − r(X))^T]. Small eigenvalues mark directions that are fragile (large variance and large amplification of calibration error).
  • If calibration may fail, run the δ-sensitivity bound: bias along v_j ≤ δ ||τ||_1 λ_j^{-1/2}.
  • If M has null directions, report partial identification: some contrasts are not point-identified by the data and assumptions.
• Practical recommendations for applied work
  • Prefer probability-weighted estimators and report A_h when any coarsening was used.
  • Use cross-fitting to estimate nuisances (r, μ) and preserve orthogonality.
  • When reporting disparities or treatment effects across multiple classes, present direction-specific uncertainty (e.g., eigen-space intervals or ellipsoids) rather than only marginal CIs from coarsened labels.
  • If a hard-label correction is required, consider collecting a small gold-labeled subsample (to assess calibration and estimate correction matrices) or use methods that explicitly model misclassification; but note that A_h and its coverage consequences are estimable without gold labels.
• Broader message for AI-driven economic measurement
  • Analysts who treat classifier outputs as innocuous inputs (by hardening) risk anisotropic and potentially large errors in economic inference. The paper provides both a diagnosis (A_h operator, spectral diagnostics) and a practical pre-reporting test (compute A_h and implied coverage) that can and should be integrated into audits, fairness studies, and other AI-economics pipelines that use predicted class probabilities.