Collapsibility of Performance Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30568v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:43:22 GMT
• Title: Collapsibility of Performance Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI
• Abstract summary: Some performance metrics are non-collapsible, meaning that the overall population performance value does not equal the weighted average of subgroup specific values.<n>Five performance metrics (AUC, calibration intercept, calibration slope, expected calibration error, and Nagelkerke R2) are shown to be non-collapsible, and ten (O:E ratio, logloss, Brier score, accuracy, F1-score, true positive rate, true negative rate, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and net benefit) are shown to be collapsible.
• Score: 0.7503129292751939
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Population level assessments of predictive artificial intelligence (AI) can conceal performance disparities across subgroups. Fairness evaluations commonly rely on performance analyses across subgroups. However, some performance metrics are non-collapsible, meaning that the overall population performance value does not equal the weighted average of subgroup specific values. Objective: To examine the collapsibility properties of commonly reported performance metrics in predictive AI, with a focus on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, also known as c-statistic). Methods: We investigate the collapsibility of 15 performance metrics, either by expressing each metric as a linear combination of its stratum specific values or, where non-collapsible, by providing a counterexample inspired by Simpson's paradox as a formal disproof. Results: Five performance metrics (AUC, calibration intercept, calibration slope, expected calibration error, and Nagelkerke R^2) are shown to be non-collapsible, and ten (O:E ratio, logloss, Brier score, accuracy, F1-score, true positive rate, true negative rate, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and net benefit) are shown to be collapsible. The AUC is shown to be non-collapsible because it decomposes into within- and cross-group AUC terms when subpopulations coexist, such that its overall value may fall outside the range of subgroup specific AUCs. Conclusions: Non-collapsibility of performance metrics has important consequences for reporting, model appraisal, and fairness evaluation. It can generate spurious differences between subgroup and overall performance, which may mislead fairness evaluations. Explicitly acknowledging and reporting the collapsibility properties of performance metrics improves both the interpretability and transparency of fairness assessments.

Related papers

• Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims [0.0]
  We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as claims with three properties: formality, scope, and validity windows.<n>We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T18:50:39Z)
• A Theoretical Framework for Statistical Evaluability of Generative Models [57.9316356505791]
  We introduce a theoretical framework for evaluating generative models and establish evaluability results for commonly used metrics.<n>We study two categories of metrics: test-based metrics, including integral probability metrics (IPMs) and Rényi divergences.<n>We show that IPMs with respect to any bounded test class can be evaluated from finite samples up to multiplicative and additive approximation errors.<n>In contrast, Rényi and KL divergences are not evaluable from finite samples, as their values can be critically determined by rare events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T01:53:59Z)
• The Lie of the Average: How Class Incremental Learning Evaluation Deceives You? [48.83567710215299]
  Class Incremental Learning (CIL) requires models to continuously learn new classes without forgetting previously learned ones.<n>We argue that a robust CIL evaluation protocol should accurately characterize and estimate the entire performance distribution.<n>We propose EDGE, an evaluation protocol that adaptively identifies and samples extreme class sequences using inter-task similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T17:00:15Z)
• Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness [49.35494016290887]
  We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities.<n>Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T17:40:31Z)
• A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups [53.91682617836498]
  Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups. We introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:21:45Z)
• Individualized Policy Evaluation and Learning under Clustered Network Interference [3.8601741392210434]
  We consider the problem of evaluating and learning an optimal individualized treatment rule (ITR) under clustered network interference.<n>We propose an estimator that can be used to evaluate the empirical performance of an ITR.<n>We derive the finite-sample regret bound for a learned ITR, showing that the use of our efficient evaluation estimator leads to the improved performance of learned policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-04T17:58:24Z)
• Selective Regression Under Fairness Criteria [30.672082160544996]
  In some cases, the performance of minority group can decrease while we reduce the coverage. We show that such an unwanted behavior can be avoided if we can construct features satisfying the sufficiency criterion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-28T19:05:12Z)
• Deconfounding Scores: Feature Representations for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap [140.98628848491146]
  We introduce deconfounding scores, which induce better overlap without biasing the target of estimation. We show that deconfounding scores satisfy a zero-covariance condition that is identifiable in observed data. In particular, we show that this technique could be an attractive alternative to standard regularizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T18:50:11Z)
• Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groups [89.14499988774985]
  We find that while selective classification can improve average accuracies, it can simultaneously magnify existing accuracy disparities. Increasing abstentions can even decrease accuracies on some groups. We train distributionally-robust models that achieve similar full-coverage accuracies across groups and show that selective classification uniformly improves each group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-27T08:51:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.