Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42236789›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Feature-weighted maximum representative subsampling.

Tony Hauptmann, Stefan Kramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tony HauptmannInstitute of Computer Science, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. thauptmann@uni-mainz.de.
Stefan KramerInstitute of Computer Science, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the social sciences, it is often necessary to debias studies and surveys before valid conclusions can be drawn. Debiasing algorithms enable the computational removal of bias using sample weights. However, an issue arises when only a subset of features is highly biased, while the rest are already representative. Algorithms need to substantially alter the sample distribution to handle a few highly biased features, which can, in turn, introduce bias into otherwise representative variables. To address this issue, we developed a method that uses feature weights to minimize the impact of highly biased features on the computation of sample weights. Our algorithm is based on Maximum Representative Subsampling (MRS), which debiases datasets by iteratively removing elements from a non-representative sample to align it with a representative one. The new algorithm, named feature-weighted MRS (FW-MRS), decreases the emphasis on highly biased features, allowing it to retain more instances for downstream tasks. The feature weights are derived from the feature importance of a domain classifier trained to differentiate between the representative and non-representative datasets. We validated FW-MRS using eight tabular datasets, each of which we artificially biased. Biased features can be important for downstream tasks, and focusing less on them could reduce generalization. For this reason, we assessed the generalization performance of FW-MRS on downstream tasks and found no statistically significant differences. Additionally, FW-MRS was applied to a real-world dataset from the social sciences. The source code is available at https://github.com/kramerlab/FeatureWeightDebiasing .

Indexed as

DebiasingFeature weights

Identifiers

PMID42236789
PMCPMC13234176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.