cs.LGAug 31, 2026

Collapsibility of Performance Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

Authors: João Matos, Ben Van Calster, Richard D. Riley, Paula Dhiman, Gary S. Collins

Organizations: Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford · KU Leuven · University of Birmingham · University of Oxford

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Feb 12, 2026cs.LG

Using predictive multiplicity to measure individual performance within the AI Act

When building AI systems for decision support, one often encounters the phenomenon of predictive multiplicity: a single best model does not exist; instead, one can construct many models with similar overall accuracy that differ in their predictions for individual cases. Especially when decisions have a direct impact on humans, this can be highly unsatisfactory. For a person subject to high disagreement between models, one could as well have chosen a different model of similar overall accuracy that would have decided the person's case differently. We argue that this arbitrariness conflicts with the EU AI Act, which requires providers of high-risk AI systems to report performance not only at the dataset level but also for specific persons. The goal of this paper is to put predictive multiplicity in context with the EU AI Act's provisions on accuracy and to subsequently derive concrete suggestions on how to evaluate and report predictive multiplicity in practice. Specifically: (1) We introduce the AI Act's accuracy provisions and argue that incorporating information about predictive multiplicity could serve compliance with specific provisions for providers. (2) Based on this legally rigorous analysis, we suggest individual conflict ratios and δδ-ambiguity as tools to quantify the disagreement between models on individual cases and to help detect individuals subject to conflicting predictions. (3) Based on computational insights, we derive easy-to-implement rules on how model providers could evaluate predictive multiplicity in practice. (4) Ultimately, we suggest that information about predictive multiplicity should be made available to deployers under the AI Act, enabling them to judge whether system outputs for specific individuals are reliable enough for their use case.
Karolin Frohnapfel, Mara Seyfert, Sebastian Bordt +2
Responsible Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence EvaluationPredictive PerformanceArtificial Intelligence RiskConflict
AskPDF
May 14, 2026cs.LG

Multi-Dimensional Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index and Scoring Framework

Artificial intelligence in high-stakes tabular domains cannot be evaluated by predictive performance alone, yet current practice still assesses explainability, fairness, robustness, privacy, and sustainability mostly in isolation. We propose the Model Integrity and Responsibility Assessment Index (MIRAI), a unified evaluation framework that measures tabular models across these five dimensions under a controlled comparison setting and aggregates them into a single score. MIRAI combines established metrics through normalized and direction-aligned dimension scores, which enables direct comparison across models with different architectural and computational profiles. Experiments on healthcare, financial, and socioeconomic datasets show that higher predictive performance does not necessarily imply better overall integrity and responsibility. In several cases, simpler models achieve a stronger cross-dimensional balance than more complex deep tabular architectures. MIRAI provides a compact and practical basis for responsible model selection in regulated settings.
Phuc Truong Loc Nguyen, Thanh Hung Do, Truong Thanh Hung Nguyen +1
Tabular LearningScoring RulesPredictive PerformanceReliability
AskPDF
Jul 9, 2026cs.LG

FairSelect: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Level and Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness

Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models, yet most approaches are evaluated in isolation and along single demographic axes. This limits practical guidance for selecting fairness strategies, where disparities may arise across intersectional subgroups and across multiple stages of the modeling lifecycle. This work presents FairSelect, a toolkit for systematically evaluating fairness mitigation strategies applied individually and in combination across preprocessing, inprocessing, and postprocessing stages. FairSelect supports multiple model architectures, intersectional subgroup evaluation, and comparison of fairness utility tradeoffs across baseline, single method, and multi level configurations. The framework was validated using synthetic clinical datasets designed to represent specific bias mechanisms and a real-world replication of two-year stroke risk prediction among patients with atrial fibrillation. Synthetic experiments showed that targeted fairness methods generally reduced intended subgroup disparities, while combined strategies produced larger average fairness improvements with modest utility tradeoffs. In the clinical prediction task, mitigation effects were highly variable, with some combinations improving both fairness and predictive performance while others were ineffective or counterproductive. These findings demonstrate that fairness interventions interact in nonadditive and context dependent ways. FairSelect provides a practical framework for systematically identifying fairness strategies that improve subgroup equity while preserving model performance in clinical machine learning.
Nick Souligne, Isabella Mixton-Garcia, Vignesh Subbian
FairnessSubgroup InformationBias Detection and Mitigation
AskPDF