Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Baker, Ryan S., Bosch, Nigel, Hutt, Stephen, Zambrano, Andres F., Bowers, Alex J.
Format: Preprint
Published: 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06989
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866929309120200704
author Baker, Ryan S.
Bosch, Nigel
Hutt, Stephen
Zambrano, Andres F.
Bowers, Alex J.
author_facet Baker, Ryan S.
Bosch, Nigel
Hutt, Stephen
Zambrano, Andres F.
Bowers, Alex J.
contents Recently, ACM FAccT published an article by Kwegyir-Aggrey and colleagues (2023), critiquing the use of AUC ROC in predictive analytics in several domains. In this article, we offer a critique of that article. Specifically, we highlight technical inaccuracies in that paper's comparison of metrics, mis-specification of the interpretation and goals of AUC ROC, the article's use of the accuracy metric as a gold standard for comparison to AUC ROC, and the article's application of critiques solely to AUC ROC for concerns that would apply to the use of any metric. We conclude with a re-framing of the very valid concerns raised in that article, and discuss how the use of AUC ROC can remain a valid and appropriate practice in a well-informed predictive analytics approach taking those concerns into account. We conclude by discussing the combined use of multiple metrics, including machine learning bias metrics, and AUC ROC's place in such an approach. Like broccoli, AUC ROC is healthy, but also like broccoli, researchers and practitioners in our field shouldn't eat a diet of only AUC ROC.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_06989
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle On Fixing the Right Problems in Predictive Analytics: AUC Is Not the Problem
Baker, Ryan S.
Bosch, Nigel
Hutt, Stephen
Zambrano, Andres F.
Bowers, Alex J.
Machine Learning
Recently, ACM FAccT published an article by Kwegyir-Aggrey and colleagues (2023), critiquing the use of AUC ROC in predictive analytics in several domains. In this article, we offer a critique of that article. Specifically, we highlight technical inaccuracies in that paper's comparison of metrics, mis-specification of the interpretation and goals of AUC ROC, the article's use of the accuracy metric as a gold standard for comparison to AUC ROC, and the article's application of critiques solely to AUC ROC for concerns that would apply to the use of any metric. We conclude with a re-framing of the very valid concerns raised in that article, and discuss how the use of AUC ROC can remain a valid and appropriate practice in a well-informed predictive analytics approach taking those concerns into account. We conclude by discussing the combined use of multiple metrics, including machine learning bias metrics, and AUC ROC's place in such an approach. Like broccoli, AUC ROC is healthy, but also like broccoli, researchers and practitioners in our field shouldn't eat a diet of only AUC ROC.
title On Fixing the Right Problems in Predictive Analytics: AUC Is Not the Problem
topic Machine Learning
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06989