On Fixing the Right Problems in Predictive Analytics: AUC Is Not the Problem

Overview

• The paper critiques the use of AUC ROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) in predictive analytics across several domains.
• The authors highlight technical inaccuracies in the comparison of metrics, misinterpretation of the goals and meaning of AUC ROC, and the use of accuracy as a gold standard for comparison.
• The authors argue that the critiques applied to AUC ROC in the previous paper are applicable to the use of any metric, not just AUC ROC.
• The authors propose a re-framing of the valid concerns raised, and discuss how the use of AUC ROC can remain a valid and appropriate practice in a well-informed predictive analytics approach.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the use of a metric called AUC ROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) in predictive analytics, which is a way of measuring the performance of a model in making predictions. The authors of the previous paper had criticized the use of AUC ROC, and this paper responds to those criticisms.

The authors of this paper say that the previous paper had some technical inaccuracies in how it compared different metrics, and also misunderstood what AUC ROC is actually meant to measure. The previous paper also used another metric, called accuracy, as a "gold standard" to compare against AUC ROC, but the authors of this paper argue that the concerns raised about AUC ROC would apply to the use of any metric, not just AUC ROC.

The authors of this paper suggest a different way of looking at the concerns raised in the previous paper, and explain how AUC ROC can still be a useful and appropriate tool in predictive analytics, as long as it is used thoughtfully and in combination with other metrics, including metrics that measure bias in machine learning models.

The key idea is that just like broccoli, AUC ROC is a healthy tool, but researchers and practitioners shouldn't rely on it exclusively. A balanced "diet" of different performance metrics, including AUC ROC, is important for getting a complete picture of a model's performance.

Technical Explanation

The paper provides a critique of a previous article published in ACM FAccT that criticized the use of AUC ROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) in predictive analytics across several domains.

The authors of this paper highlight several technical inaccuracies in the previous paper's comparison of metrics. They argue that the previous paper misspecified the interpretation and goals of AUC ROC, and incorrectly used the accuracy metric as a "gold standard" for comparison to AUC ROC.

Furthermore, the authors contend that the critiques applied to AUC ROC in the previous paper are actually applicable to the use of any metric, not just AUC ROC. This is similar to the idea explored in "Schrödinger's Threshold: When AUC Doesn't Predict Accuracy".

The authors propose a re-framing of the valid concerns raised in the previous article, and discuss how the use of AUC ROC can remain a valid and appropriate practice in a well-informed predictive analytics approach. They suggest the combined use of multiple metrics, including machine learning bias metrics like those discussed in "From Algorithms to Action: Improving Patient Care", and explain AUC ROC's place within such a holistic approach.

Critical Analysis

The authors make a compelling case for the continued use of AUC ROC in predictive analytics, while acknowledging the valid concerns raised in the previous paper. They highlight technical inaccuracies in the prior work and argue that the critiques apply to the use of any metric, not just AUC ROC.

However, the authors could have delved deeper into the specific limitations and potential drawbacks of AUC ROC that were mentioned in the previous paper. For example, they could have addressed the concern that AUC ROC may not accurately reflect the real-world performance of a model, as discussed in papers like "Rethinking Uncertainty Estimation in Semantic Segmentation".

Additionally, the authors could have explored alternative metrics, such as those that measure cryptographic hardness or score estimation, and how they might complement or improve upon the use of AUC ROC in certain contexts.

Overall, the authors provide a well-reasoned defense of AUC ROC, while acknowledging the need for a more comprehensive and balanced approach to performance evaluation in predictive analytics.

Conclusion

This paper offers a thoughtful critique of the previous critique of AUC ROC, highlighting technical inaccuracies and arguing that the concerns raised apply to the use of any metric, not just AUC ROC. The authors propose a re-framing of the valid concerns and discuss how AUC ROC can remain a useful tool in predictive analytics when used as part of a broader, well-informed approach.

The key takeaway is that AUC ROC, like broccoli, is a healthy metric that should not be the sole focus of a predictive analytics "diet." A balanced approach, incorporating multiple performance metrics and considerations of bias, is necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of model performance and ensure responsible use of these technologies.