Alexey Kresin | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Who Became Financially Vulnerable After COVID-19? A Population-Level Machine Learning Analysis Using MEPS Data

The cost of healthcare remains a concern in the United States and may have been influenced by disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines healthcare financial vulnerability before and after the pandemic using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data from 2019 and 2021. High financial burden was defined as out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures exceeding 10% of family income. Survey-weighted subgroup analyses were performed to obtain nationally representative estimates across demographic and socioeconomic groups. Descriptive analyses were complemented by interpretable logistic regression and machine learning models. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios, while random forest and gradient boosting models were used to evaluate predictive performance. Temporal generalization assessed whether models trained on pre-pandemic data remained predictive when applied to post-pandemic observations. Financial vulnerability was strongly associated with poverty status, insurance coverage, and prescription drug spending. Subgroup analyses indicated persistent disparities across population groups, with some evidence of increased burden among vulnerable populations in 2021. Despite these differences, models trained on pre-pandemic data exhibited only modest reductions in predictive performance when evaluated on post-pandemic data, suggesting that the principal predictors of healthcare financial vulnerability remained relatively stable over time. These findings provide a population-level assessment of healthcare financial vulnerability during the COVID-19 period and demonstrate the value of combining interpretable statistical modeling with machine learning for population health research. The results may support future population health surveillance, risk stratification, and healthcare policy research aimed at reducing financial barriers to care.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

What Does Debiasing Really Remove? A Geometric Study of PCA-Based Gender Debiasing in Word Embeddings

Debiasing methods based on principal component analysis (PCA) are broadly used to reduce gender bias in word embeddings used in LLMs, yet it remains unclear what aspects of bias they actually remove and how destructive this process is. These methods are based on the understanding that bias resides in a low-dimensional subspace, with the assumption that most of it can be captured by a few principal components. In this work, we conduct a systematic geometric analysis of PCA-based gender debiasing and investigate what is actually removed from the embedding space. Our experiments across multiple embeddings show that direct gender bias is primarily concentrated in the first principal component, supporting the low-rank bias hypothesis. However, associative bias measured by WEAT does not align with these principal directions and is instead spread across multiple embedding dimensions. Furthermore, as expected, we demonstrate that removing an increasing number of principal components leads to a consistent degradation of the embedding geometry, affecting semantic structure and vector relationships. These results reveal that PCA-based debiasing operates as a trade-off: while it effectively reduces certain forms of direct bias, it fails to eliminate distributed associations and introduces geometric distortion. Moreover, there is no universal optimal level of debiasing, as the balance between bias reduction and semantic preservation depends on the chosen metric and embedding. Overall, our findings suggest that bias in word embeddings is not purely low-rank and that simple subspace removal methods may be insufficient for comprehensive debiasing.

cs.CL↗