Do covariates explain why these groups differ? The choice of reference group can reverse conclusions in the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition

Scientists often want to explain why an outcome is different in two groups. For instance, differences in patient mortality rates across two hospitals could be due to differences in the patients themselves (covariates) or differences in medical care (outcomes given covariates). The Oaxaca--Blinder decomposition (OBD) is a standard tool to tease apart these factors. It is well known that the OBD requires choosing one of the groups as a reference, and the numerical answer can vary with the reference. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been a systematic investigation into whether the choice of OBD reference can yield different substantive conclusions and how common this issue is. In the present paper, we give existence proofs in real and simulated data that the OBD references can yield substantively different conclusions and that these differences are not entirely driven by model misspecification or small data. We prove that substantively different conclusions occur in up to half of the parameter space, but find these discrepancies rare in the real-data analyses we study. We explain this empirical rarity by examining how realistic data-generating processes can be biased towards parameters that do not change conclusions under the OBD.

Common Functional Decompositions Can Mis-attribute Differences in Outcomes Between Populations

In science and social science, we often wish to explain why an outcome is different in two populations. For instance, if a jobs program benefits members of one city more than another, is that due to differences in program participants (particular covariates) or the local labor markets (outcomes given covariates)? The Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder (KOB) decomposition is a standard tool in econometrics that explains the difference in the mean outcome across two populations. However, the KOB decomposition assumes a linear relationship between covariates and outcomes, while the true relationship may be meaningfully nonlinear. Modern machine learning boasts a variety of nonlinear functional decompositions for the relationship between outcomes and covariates in one population. It seems natural to extend the KOB decomposition using these functional decompositions. We observe that a successful extension should not attribute the differences to covariates -- or, respectively, to outcomes given covariates -- if those are the same in the two populations. Unfortunately, we demonstrate that, even in simple examples, two common decompositions -- functional ANOVA and Accumulated Local Effects -- can attribute differences to outcomes given covariates, even when they are identical in two populations. We provide a characterization of when functional ANOVA misattributes, as well as a general property that any discrete decomposition must satisfy to avoid misattribution. We show that if the decomposition is independent of its input distribution, it does not misattribute. We further conjecture that misattribution arises in any reasonable additive decomposition that depends on the distribution of the covariates.