ML-supported decisions, such as ordering tests or determining preventive custody, often involve binary classification based on probabilistic forecasts. Evaluation frameworks for such forecasts typically consider whether to prioritize independent-decision metrics (e.g., Accuracy) or top-K metrics (e.g., Precision@K), and whether to focus on fixed thresholds or threshold-agnostic measures like AUC-ROC. We highlight that a consequentialist perspective, long advocated by decision theorists, should naturally favor evaluations that support independent decisions using a mixture of thresholds given their prevalence, such as Brier scores and Log loss. However, our empirical analysis reveals a strong preference for top-K metrics or fixed thresholds in evaluations at major conferences like ICML, FAccT, and CHIL. To address this gap, we use this decision-theoretic framework to map evaluation metrics to their optimal use cases, along with a Python package, briertools, to promote the broader adoption of Brier scores. In doing so, we also uncover new theoretical connections, including a reconciliation between the Brier Score and Decision Curve Analysis, which clarifies and responds to a longstanding critique by (Assel, et al. 2017) regarding the clinical utility of proper scoring rules.
View on arXiv@article{flores2025_2504.04528,
title={ A Consequentialist Critique of Binary Classification Evaluation Practices },
author={ Gerardo Flores and Abigail Schiff and Alyssa H. Smith and Julia A Fukuyama and Ashia C. Wilson },
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04528},
year={ 2025 }
}