Named Entity Recognition Tests

Abnormal Input

Unseen Unigram

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with unseen unigrams and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with unseen unigrams. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Unseen unigrams are a common failure point in machine learning systems; since these models are trained over a reference set, they may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an unseen unigram. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test is run over every data point.

Example: Say that there is a text field with value James went to his casa and the unigram casa was not seen in the reference set. This test would raise a warning flagging that datapoint, with the severity depending on how bad the model performed on that datapoint.

Empty Text String

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with empty strings and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with empty strings. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Empty strings are a common failure point in machine learning systems; as some models may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an empty string. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test is run over every data point.

Example: Say that there is a text field that is just an empty string. This test would raise a warning flagging that datapoint, with the severity depending on how bad the model performed on that datapoint.

Numeric Outliers

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with outliers and their impact on the model. Outliers are values which may not necessarily be outside of an allowed range for a feature, but are extreme values that are unusual and may be indicative of abnormality. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with outliers. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Outliers can be a sign of corrupted or otherwise erroneous data, and can degrade model performance if used in the training data, or lead to unexpected behaviour if input at inference time.

Configuration: By default this test is run over each numeric feature that is neither unique nor ascending.

Example: Suppose there is a feature age for which in the reference set the values 103 and 114 each appear once but every other value (with subsantial sample size) is contained within the range [0, 97]. Then we would infer a lower outlier threshold of 0 and an upper outlier threshold of 97. This test raises a warning if we observe any values in the evaluation set outside these thresholds or if model performance decreases on observed datapoints with outliers.

Unseen URL

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with unseen URL values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with unseen URL values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Unseen categorical values are a common failure point in machine learning systems; since these models are trained over a reference set, they may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an unseen categorical value. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all features inferred to contain URLs.

Example: Say that the feature WebURL contains the values ['http://google.com', 'http://yahoo.com'] from the reference set. This test raises a warning if we observe any unseen values in the evaluation set such as 'http://xyzabc.com'.

Unseen Domain

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with unseen domain values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with unseen domain values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Unseen categorical values are a common failure point in machine learning systems; since these models are trained over a reference set, they may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an unseen categorical value. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all features inferred to contain domains.

Example: Say that the feature WebDomain contains the values ['gmail.com', 'hotmail.com'] from the reference set. This test raises a warning if we observe any unseen values in the evaluation set such as 'xyzabc.com'.

Unseen Email

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with unseen email values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with unseen email values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Unseen categorical values are a common failure point in machine learning systems; since these models are trained over a reference set, they may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an unseen categorical value. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all features inferred to contain emails.

Example: Say that the feature Email contains the values ['[email protected]', '[email protected]'] from the reference set. This test raises a warning if we observe any unseen values in the evaluation set such as '[email protected]'.

Out of Range

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with values outside the inferred range of allowed values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with values outside the inferred range of allowed values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: In production, the model may encounter corrupted or manipulated out of range values. It is important that the model is robust to such extremities.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all numeric features.

Example: In the reference set, the Age feature has a range of [0, 121]. This test raises a warning if we observe values outside of this range in the evaluation set (eg. 150, 200) or if model performance decreases on observed datapoints outside of this range.

Rare Categories

This test measures the severity of passing to the model data points whose features contain rarely observed categories (relative the reference set). The severity is a function of the impact of these values on the model, as well as the presence of these values in the data. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with rarely observed categorical values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change. The number of failing rows refers to the number of times rarely observed categorical values are observed in the evaluation set.

Why it matters: Rare categories are a common failure point in machine learning systems because less data often means worse performance. In addition, this may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all categorical features. A category is considered rare if it occurs fewer than min_num_occurrences times, or if it occurs less than min_pct_occurrences of the time. If neither of these values are specified, the rate of appearance below which a category is considered rare is min_ratio_rel_uniform divided by the number of classes.

Example: Say that the feature AgeGroup takes on the value 0-18 twice while taking on the value 35-55 a total of 98 times. If the min_num_occurences is 5 and the min_pct_occurrences is 0.03 then the test will flag the value 0-18 as a rare category.

Empty String

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with empty string values instead of null values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with empty string values instead of null values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: In production, the model may encounter corrupted or manipulated string values. Null values and empty strings are often expected to be treated the same, but the model might not treat them that way. It is important that the model is robust to such extremities.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all string features with null values.

Example: In the reference set, the Name feature contains nulls. This test raises a warning if we observe any empty string in the Name feature or if these values decrease model performance.

Inconsistencies

This test measures the severity of passing to the model data points whose values are inconsistent (as inferred from the reference set). The severity is a function of the impact of these values on the model, as well as the presence of these values in the data. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with data containing inconsistent feature values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change. The number of failing rows refers to the number of times data containing inconsistent feature values are observed in the evaluation set.

Why it matters: Inconsistent values might be the result of malicious actors manipulating the data or errors in the data pipeline. Thus, it is important to be aware of inconsistent values to identify sources of manipulations or errors.

Configuration: By default, this test runs on pairs of categorical features whose correlations exceed some minimum threshold. The default threshold for the frequency ratio below which values are considered to be inconsistent is 0.02.

Example: Suppose we have a feature country that takes on value "US" with frequency 0.5, and a feature time_zone that takes on value "Central European Time" with frequency 0.2. Then if these values appear together with frequency less than 0.5 * 0.2 * 0.02 = 0.002 , in the reference set, rows in which these values do appear together are inconsistencies.

Capitalization

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with different types of capitalization and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with different types of capitalization. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: In production, models can come across the same value with different capitalizations, making it important to explicitly check that your model is invariant to such differences.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all categorical features.

Example: Suppose we had a column that corresponded to country code. For a specific row, let's say the observed value in the reference set was USA. This test raises a warning if we observe a similar value in the evaluation set with case changes, e.g. uSa or if model performance decreases on observed datapoints with case changes.

Required Characters

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with strings without any required characters and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with strings without any required characters. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: A feature may require specific characters. However, errors in the data pipeline may allow invalid data points that lack these required characters to pass. Failing to catch such errors may lead to noisier training data or noisier predictions during inference, which can degrade model metrics.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all string features that are inferred to have required characters.

Example: Say that the feature email requires the character @. This test raises a warning if we observe any values in the evaluation set where the character is missing.

Unseen Categorical

This test measures the number of failing rows in your data with unseen categorical values and their impact on the model. The model impact is the difference in model performance between passing and failing rows with unseen categorical values. If labels are not provided, prediction change is used instead of model performance change.

Why it matters: Unseen categorical values are a common failure point in machine learning systems; since these models are trained over a reference set, they may yield uninterpretable or undefined behavior when interacting with an unseen categorical value. In addition, such errors may expose gaps or errors in data collection.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all categorical features.

Example: Say that the feature Animal contains the values ['Cat', 'Dog'] from the reference set. This test raises a warning if we observe any unseen values in the evaluation set such as 'Mouse'.

Distribution Drift

Entity Lengths Distribution

This test measures the entity length distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is a function of the magnitude of data drift, and the impact of that drift on model performance. Performance change is attributed using the performance on subsets (quantiles or categories) of given feature and the change in subset prevalence across datasets.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the entity length distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the entity length distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Entity Type Distribution

This test measures the label entity type distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is a function of the magnitude of data drift, and the impact of that drift on model performance. Performance change is attributed using the performance on subsets (quantiles or categories) of given feature and the change in subset prevalence across datasets.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the label entity type distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the label entity type distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Predicted Entity Type Distribution

This test measures the predicted entity type distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is a function of the magnitude of data drift, and the impact of that drift on model performance. Performance change is attributed using the performance on subsets (quantiles or categories) of given feature and the change in subset prevalence across datasets.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the predicted entity type distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the predicted entity type distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Unigrams Distribution

This test measures the unigram distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is determined by comparing the computed drift statistic to the configured severity thresholds.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the unigram distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the unigram distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Bigrams Distribution

This test measures the bigram distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is determined by comparing the computed drift statistic to the configured severity thresholds.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the bigram distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the bigram distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Character Distribution

This test measures the character distribution drift between the reference and evaluation sets. By default, it measures drift by using the Population Stability Index of the two distributions.The severity is determined by comparing the computed drift statistic to the configured severity thresholds.

Why it matters: The reference set that you use to train your model may not be representative of the evaluation set you encounter in production. If there are statistically significant differences in the character distribution between these sets, it can lead to subpar real-world model performance.

Configuration: To pass a given test case, the divergence metric must be below the configured threshold.

Example: Suppose that the change in the character distribution in the reference set and evaluation set yielded a JS Divergence of 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Feature Correlation Drift

This test measures the severity of feature correlation drift from the reference to the evaluation set for a given pair of features. The severity is a function of the mutual information drift in the data. The key detail is the difference in correlation scores between the reference and evaluation sets, along with an associated p-value. Correlation is a measure of the linear relationship between two numeric features, so this test checks for significant changes in this relationship between pairs of features in the reference and evaluation sets. To compute the p-value, we use Fisher's z-transformation to convert the distribution of sample correlations to a normal distribution, and then we run a standard two-sample test on two normal distributions.

Why it matters: Correlation drift between training and inference can be caused by a variety of factors, including a change in the data generation process or a change in the underlying processing stage. A big shift in these dependencies could indicate shifting datasets and degradation in model performance, signalling the need for relabeling and retraining.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all pairs of features in the dataset.

Example: Suppose that the correlation between country and state is 0.5 in the reference set but 0.7 in the evaluation set, and the p-value is 0.03. Then the large difference in scores indicates that the dependency between the two features has drifted. If our difference threshold was 0.2, and p-value threshold was 0.05, then the test would fail.

Mutual Information Drift (Feature-to-Feature)

This test measures the severity of feature mutual information drift from the reference to the evaluation set for a given pair of features. The severity is a function of the mutual information drift in the data. The key detail is the difference in mutual information scores between the reference and evaluation sets. Mutual information is a measure of how dependent two features are, so this checks for significant changes in dependence between pairs of features in the reference and evaluation sets.

Why it matters: Mutual information drift between training and inference can be caused by a variety of factors, including a change in the data generation process or a change in the underlying processing stage. A big shift in these dependencies could indicate shifting datasets and degradation in model performance, signalling the need for relabeling and retraining.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all pairs of features in the dataset.

Example: Suppose that the mutual information between country and state is 0.5 in the reference set but 0.7 in the evaluation set. Then the large difference in scores indicates that the dependency between the two features has drifted. If our difference threshold was 0.2 then the test would fail.

Mutual Information Drift (Feature-to-Label)

This test measures the severity of feature mutual information drift from the reference to the evaluation set for a given pair of features. The severity is a function of the mutual information drift in the data. The key detail is the difference in mutual information scores between the reference and evaluation sets. Mutual information is a measure of how dependent two features are, so this checks for significant changes in dependence between pairs of features in the reference and evaluation sets.

Why it matters: Mutual information drift between training and inference can be caused by a variety of factors, including a change in the data generation process or a change in the underlying processing stage. A big shift in these dependencies could indicate shifting datasets and degradation in model performance, signalling the need for relabeling and retraining.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all pairs of features in the dataset.

Example: Suppose that the mutual information between country and state is 0.5 in the reference set but 0.7 in the evaluation set. Then the large difference in scores indicates that the dependency between the two features has drifted. If our difference threshold was 0.2 then the test would fail.

Categorical Feature Drift

This test measures the severity of passing to the model data points that have categorical features which have drifted from the distribution observed in the reference set. The severity is a function of the impact on the model, as well as the presence of drift in the data. The model impact measures how much model performance changes due to drift in the given feature. The key detail displayed is the PSI test statistic, which is a measure of how statistically significant the difference between the frequencies of categorical values in the reference and evaluation sets is.

Why it matters: Distribution drift in categorical features between training and inference can be caused by a variety of factors, including a change in the data generation process or a change in the preprocessing pipeline. A big shift in categorical features towards categorical subsets that your model performs poorly in could indicate a degradation in model performance and signal the need for relabeling and retraining.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all categorical columns with sufficiently many samples.

Example: Suppose that the observed frequencies of the isLoggedIn feature is [100, 200] in the reference set but [25, 150] in the test set. Then the PSI would be 0.201. If our PSI threshold was 0.1 then the test would fail.

Label Drift (PSI)

This test checks that the difference in label distribution between the reference and evaluation sets is small, using PSI test. The key detail displayed is the PSI statistic which is a measure of how different the frequencies of the column in the reference and evaluation sets are.

Why it matters: Label distribution shift between reference and test can indicate that the underlying data distribution has changed significantly enough to modify model decisions. This may mean that the model needs to be retrained to adjust to the new data environment. In addition, significant label distribution shift may indicate that upstream decision-making modules (e.g. thresholds) may need to be updated.

Configuration: This test is run by default whenever both the reference and evaluation sets have associated labels.

Example: Suppose that the observed frequencies of the label column is [100, 200] in the reference set but [25, 150] in the test set. Then the PSI would be 0.201. If our PSI threshold was 0.1 then the test would fail.

Label Drift

This test checks that the difference in label distribution between the reference and evaluation sets is small, using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test. The key detail displayed is the KS statistic which is a measure of how different the labels in the reference and evaluation sets are. Concretely, the KS statistic is the maximum difference of the empirical CDF's of the two label columns.

Why it matters: Label distribution shift between reference and test can indicate that the underlying data distribution has changed significantly enough to modify model decisions. This may mean that the model needs to be retrained to adjust to the new data environment. In addition, significant label distribution shift may indicate that upstream decision-making modules (e.g. thresholds) may need to be updated.

Configuration: This test is run by default whenever both the reference and evaluation sets have associated labels.

Example: Suppose that the distribution of labels changes between the reference and evaluation sets such that the p-value for the K-S test between these two samples is 0.005 and the test statistic is 0.2. If the p-value threshold is set to 0.01 and the model impact threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Numeric Feature Drift

This test measures the severity of passing to the model data points that have numeric features that have drifted from the distribution observed in the reference set. The severity is a function of the impact on the model, as well as the presence of drift in the data. The model impact measures how much model performance changes due to drift in the given feature. The key detail is the Population Stability Index statistic. The Population Stability Index (PSI) is a measure of how different two distributions are. Given two distributions P and Q, it is computed as the sum of the KL Divergence between P and Q and the (reverse) KL Divergence between Q and P. Thus, PSI is symmetric.

Why it matters: Distribution shift between training and inference can cause degradation in model performance. If the shift is sufficiently large, retraining the model on newer data may be necessary.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all numeric columns with sufficiently many samples and stored quantiles in each of the reference and evaluation sets.

Example: Suppose that the distribution of a feature Age changes between the reference and evaluation sets such that the Population Stability Index between these two samples is 0.2. If the distance threshold is set to 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Overall Metrics

This test checks a set of overall metrics to see if any have experienced significant degradation. The key detail displays whether the given performance metric has degraded beyond a defined threshold.

Why it matters: During production, factors like distribution shift or a change in p(y|x) may cause model performance to decrease significantly.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over all metrics for this model task.

Example: Assume that on the reference set the model obtained 0.85 AUC but on the evaluation set the model obtained 0.5 AUC. Then this test raises a warning.

Prediction Drift

This test checks that the difference in the prediction distribution between the reference and evaluation sets is small, using Population Stability Index. The key detail displayed is the PSI which is a measure of how different the prediction distributions in the reference and evaluation sets are.

Why it matters: Prediction distribution shift between reference and test can indicate that the underlying data distribution has changed significantly enough to modify model decisions. This may mean that the model needs to be retrained to adjust to the new data environment. In addition, significant prediction distribution drift may indicate that upstream decision-making modules (e.g. thresholds) may need to be updated.

Configuration: This test is run by default whenever both the reference and evaluation sets have associated predictions. Different thresholds are associated with different severities.

Example: Suppose that the PSI between the prediction distributions in the reference and evaluation sets is 0.201. Then if the PSI thresholds are (0.1, 0.2, 0.3), the test would fail with medium severity.

Calibration Comparison

This test checks that the reference and evaluation sets have sufficiently similar calibration curves as measured by the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the two curves. The calibration curve is a line plot where the x-axis represents the average predicted probability and the y-axis is the proportion of positive predictions. The curve of the ideal calibrated model is thus a linear straight line from (0, 0) moving linearly.

Why it matters: Knowing how well-calibrated your model is can help you better interpret and act upon model outputs, and can even be an indicator of generalization. A greater difference between reference and evaluation curves could indicate a lack of generalizability. In addition, a change in calibration could indicate that decision-making or thresholding conducted upstream needs to change as it is behaving differently on held-out data.

Configuration: By default, this test runs over the predictions and labels.

Example: Suppose the model’s task is binary classification and predicts whether or not a datapoint is fraudulent. If we have a reference set in which 1% of the datapoints are fraudulent, but an evaluation set where 50% are fraudulent, then our model may not be well calibrated, and the MSE difference in the curves will be large, resulting in a failing test.

Predicted Label Drift (PSI)

This test checks that the difference in predicted label distribution between the reference and evaluation sets is small, using PSI test. The key detail displayed is the PSI statistic which is a measure of how different the frequencies of the column in the reference and evaluation sets are.

Why it matters: Predicted Label distribution shift between reference and test can indicate that the underlying data distribution has changed significantly enough to modify model decisions. This may mean that the model needs to be retrained to adjust to the new data environment. In addition, significant predicted label distribution shift may indicate that upstream decision-making modules (e.g. thresholds) may need to be updated.

Configuration: This test is run by default whenever the model or predictions is provided.

Example: Suppose that the observed frequencies of the predicted label column is [100, 200] in the reference set but [25, 150] in the test set. Then the PSI would be 0.201. If our PSI threshold was 0.1 then the test would fail.

Subset Performance

Predicted Entity Type Subsets

This test measures whether the model performs equally well across subsets of the data when grouped by predicted entity type. These subsets are defined by grouping input sequences into approximately equal-width bins of the aforementioned metric. The test then measures whether model performance, as defined by the precision, for any given subset is significantly worse than the average performance across all subsets of the data.

Why it matters: Having similar performance across various subsets of the data is an important measure of performance bias.

Configuration: By default, this test measures whether the precision of each subgroup is within 0.05 of the overall performance.

Example: Suppose that the precision of one subset of sentences was 0.2. If the overall precision was 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Label Entity Type Subsets

This test measures whether the model performs equally well across subsets of the data when grouped by label entity type. These subsets are defined by grouping input sequences into approximately equal-width bins of the aforementioned metric. The test then measures whether model performance, as defined by the recall, for any given subset is significantly worse than the average performance across all subsets of the data.

Why it matters: Having similar performance across various subsets of the data is an important measure of performance bias.

Configuration: By default, this test measures whether the recall of each subgroup is within 0.05 of the overall performance.

Example: Suppose that the recall of one subset of sentences was 0.2. If the overall recall was 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Number of Entities Subsets

This test measures whether the model performs equally well across subsets of the data when grouped by number of entities. These subsets are defined by grouping input sequences into approximately equal-width bins of the aforementioned metric. The test then measures whether model performance, as defined by the f1, for any given subset is significantly worse than the average performance across all subsets of the data.

Why it matters: Having similar performance across various subsets of the data is an important measure of performance bias.

Configuration: By default, this test measures whether the f1 of each subgroup is within 0.05 of the overall performance.

Example: Suppose that the f1 of one subset of sentences was 0.2. If the overall f1 was 0.1, this test would raise a warning.

Subset AUC

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Area Under Curve (AUC) of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Area Under Curve (AUC) over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar AUC between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, AUC is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we compute AUC of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the AUC over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.0, compared to the overall metric of 0.44.

Subset Accuracy

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the accuracy of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction accuracy over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar accuracy between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Accuracy can be thought of as a 'weaker' metric of model bias compared to measuring false positive rate (predictive equality) or false negative rate (equal opportunity). This is because we can have similar accuracy between group A and group B; yet group A actually has higher false positive rate, while group B has higher false negative rate (e.g. we reject qualified applicants in group A but accept non-qualified applicants in group B). Nevertheless, accuracy is a standard metric used during evaluation and should be considered as part of performance bias testing.

Configuration: By default, accuracy is computed over all predictions/labels. Note we round predictions to 0/1 to compute accuracy.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the accuracy over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.33, compared to the overall metric of 0.5.

Subset Accuracy

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the accuracy of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction accuracy over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar accuracy between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Accuracy can be thought of as a 'weaker' metric of model bias compared to measuring false positive rate (predictive equality) or false negative rate (equal opportunity). This is because we can have similar accuracy between group A and group B; yet group A actually has higher false positive rate, while group B has higher false negative rate (e.g. we reject qualified applicants in group A but accept non-qualified applicants in group B). Nevertheless, accuracy is a standard metric used during evaluation and should be considered as part of performance bias testing.

Configuration: By default, accuracy is computed over all predictions/labels. Note we round predictions to 0/1 to compute accuracy.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the accuracy over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.33, compared to the overall metric of 0.5.

Subset Multiclass AUC

In the multiclass setting, we compute one vs. one area under the curve (AUC), which computes the AUC between every pairwise combination of classes. This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Area Under Curve (AUC) of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Area Under Curve (AUC) over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar AUC between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, AUC is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we compute AUC of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.

Example: Suppose we are differentiating between cats, bears, and dogs. Assume that across the data points where height=2 the predictions are [0.9, 0.1, 0], [0.1, 0.9, 0], [0.2, 0.1, 0.7] and the labels are [1, 0, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] (where the first index corresponds to cat, the second corresponds to bear, and the third corresponds to dog). Then the AUC (one vs. one) across this subset is 0.75. If the overall AUC (one vs. one) across all subsets is 0.9 then this test raises a warning.

Subset F1

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the F1 of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction F1 over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar F1 between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, F1 is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we round predictions to 0/1 to compute F1 score.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the F1 over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.5, compared to the overall metric of 0.57.

Subset Macro F1

F1 is a holistic measure of both precision and recall. When transitioning to the multiclass setting we can use macro F1 which computes the F1 of each class and averages them. This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the macro F1 of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction macro F1 over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar macro F1 between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, macro F1 is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that the predicted label is the label with the largest predicted probability.

Example: Suppose we are differentiating between cats, bears, and dogs. Assume that across the data points where height=2 the predictions are [0.9, 0.1, 0], [0.1, 0.9, 0], [0.2, 0.1, 0.7] and the labels are [1, 0, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] (where the first index corresponds to cat, the second corresponds to bear, and the third corresponds to dog). Then the macro F1 across this subset is 0.78. If the overall macro F1 across all subsets is 0.9 then this test raises a warning.

Subset Precision

The precision test is also popularly referred to positive predictive parity in fairness literature. This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Precision of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Precision over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar precision (e.g. false discovery rates) between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Unlike demographic parity, this test permits assuming different base label rates but flags differing mistake rates between different subgroups. Note that positive predictive parity does not necessarily indicate equal opportunity or predictive equality: as a hypothetical example, imagine that a loan qualification classifier flags 100 entries for group A and 100 entries for group B, each with a precision of 100%, but there are 100 actual qualified entries in group A and 9000 in group B. This would indicate disparities in opportunities given to each subgroup.

Configuration: By default, Precision is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we round predictions to 0/1 to compute precision.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the Precision over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.5, compared to the overall metric of 0.5.

Subset Macro Precision

The precision test is also popularly referred to as positive predictive parity in fairness literature. When transitioning to the multiclass setting, we can compute macro precision which computes the precisions of each class individually and then averages them.This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Macro Precision of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Macro Precision over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar macro precision (e.g. false discovery rates) between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Unlike demographic parity, this test permits assuming different base label rates but flags differing mistake rates between different subgroups. Note that positive predictive parity does not necessarily indicate equal opportunity or predictive equality: as a hypothetical example, imagine that a loan qualification classifier flags 100 entries for group A and 100 entries for group B, each with a precision of 100%, but there are 100 actual qualified entries in group A and 9000 in group B. This would indicate disparities in opportunities given to each subgroup.

Configuration: By default, Macro Precision is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that the predicted label is the label with the greatest predicted probability.

Example: Suppose we are differentiating between cats, bears, and dogs. Assume that across the data points where height=2 the predictions are [0.9, 0.1, 0], [0.1, 0.9, 0], [0.2, 0.1, 0.7] and the labels are [1, 0, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] (where the first index corresponds to cat, the second corresponds to bear, and the third corresponds to dog). Then the Macro Precision across this subset is 0.67. If the overall Macro Precision across all subsets is 0.9 then this test raises a warning.

Subset False Positive Rate

The false positive error rate test is also popularly referred to as as predictive equality in fairness literature. This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the false positive rate of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than the model prediction false positive rate over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar false positive rates (e.g. predictive equality) between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Unlike demographic parity, this test permits assuming different base label rates but flags differing mistake rates between different subgroups. As an intuitive example, consider the case when the label indicates an undesirable attribute: if predicting whether a person will default on their loan, make sure that for people who didn't default, the rate at which the model incorrectly predicts positive is similar for group A and B.

Configuration: By default, false positive rate is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we round predictions to 0/1 to compute false positive rate.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the false positive rate over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 1.0, compared to the overall metric of 0.67.

Subset Recall

The recall test is more popularly referred to as equal opportunity or false negative error rate balance in fairness literature. This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Recall of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Recall over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar true positive rates (e.g. equal opportunity) between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Unlike demographic parity, this test permits assuming different base label rates but flags differing mistake rates between different subgroups. An intuitive example is when the label indicates a positive attribute: if predicting whether to interview a given candidate, make sure that out of qualified candidates, the rate at which the model predicts a rejection is similar to group A and B.

Configuration: By default, Recall is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that we round predictions to 0/1 to compute recall.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]], model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.58], and labels [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]. Then, the Recall over the feature subset value 'cat' would be 0.5, compared to the overall metric of 0.66.

Subset Macro Recall

The recall test is more popularly referred to as equal opportunity or false negative error rate balance in fairness literature. When transitioning to the multiclass setting we can use macro recall which computes the recall of each individual class and then averages these numbers.This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Macro Recall of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Macro Recall over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar true positive rates (e.g. equal opportunity) between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation. Unlike demographic parity, this test permits assuming different base label rates but flags differing mistake rates between different subgroups. An intuitive example is when the label indicates a positive attribute: if predicting whether to interview a given candidate, make sure that out of qualified candidates, the rate at which the model predicts an interview is similar to group A and B.

Configuration: By default, Macro Recall is computed over all predictions/labels. Note that the predicted label is the label with the largest predicted class probability.

Example: Suppose we are differentiating between cats, bears, and dogs. Assume that across the data points where height=2 the predictions are [0.9, 0.1, 0], [0.1, 0.9, 0], [0.2, 0.1, 0.7] and the labels are [1, 0, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] (where the first index corresponds to cat, the second corresponds to bear, and the third corresponds to dog). Then the Macro Recall across this subset is 0.67. If the overall Macro Recall across all subsets is 0.9 then this test raises a warning.

Subset Prediction Variance (Positive Labels)

The subset variance test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the variance of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than model prediction variance of the entire 'population'. In this test, the population refers to all data with positive ground-truth labels.

Why it matters: High variance within a feature subset compared to the overall population could mean a few different things, and should be analyzed with other subset performance tests (accuracy, AUC) for a more clear view. In the variance metric over positive/negative labels, this could mean the model is much more uncertain about the given subset. When paired with a decrease in AUC, this implies the model underperforms on this subset.

Configuration: By default, the variance is computed over all predictions with a positive ground-truth label.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]] and model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.48]. Assume the labels are [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0].Then the prediction variance for feature column 1, subset 'cat' with positive labels would be 0.04.

Subset Prediction Variance (Negative Labels)

The subset variance test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the variance of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than model prediction variance of the entire 'population'. In this test, the population refers to all data with negative ground-truth labels.

Why it matters: High variance within a feature subset compared to the overall population could mean a few different things, and should be analyzed with other subset performance tests (accuracy, AUC) for a more clear view. In the variance metric over positive/negative labels, this could mean the model is much more uncertain about the given subset. When paired with a decrease in AUC, this implies the model underperforms on this subset.

Configuration: By default, the variance is computed over all predictions with a negative ground-truth label.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]] and model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.48]. Assume the labels are [1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0].Then the prediction variance for feature column 1, subset 'cat' with negative labels would be 0.

Subset Mean-Absolute Error (MAE)

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the MAE of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than the model prediction MAE over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar mean-absolute error between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, mean-absolute error is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [[0.4, 0.2], [0.5, 0.3], [0.7, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7], [0.8, 0.7]], model predictions [0.3, 0.4, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9], and labels [0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5]. Then, the Mean-absolute error over the feature subset (0.0, 0.5] for the first feature would be 0.15, compared to the overall metric of 0.46.

Subset Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE)

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the RMSE of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than the model prediction RMSE over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar RMSE between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, RMSE is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [[0.4, 0.2], [0.5, 0.3], [0.7, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7], [0.8, 0.7]], model predictions [0.3, 0.4, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9], and labels [0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5]. Then, the RMSE over the feature subset (0.0, 0.5] for the first feature would be 0.158, compared to the overall metric of 0.527.

Subset Prediction Variance

The subset variance test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the variance of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly higher than model prediction variance of the entire 'population'. In this test, the population refers to all data with both positive/negative ground-truth labels.

Why it matters: High variance within a feature subset compared to the overall population could mean a few different things, and should be analyzed with other subset performance tests (accuracy, AUC) for a more clear view. In this variance metric over all labels, it could mean the label variance itself is higher within a subgroup. It could mean the model is much more uncertain about the given subset (especially when paired with a decrease in AUC). On the other hand it could mean the model has gained predictive power on the subset (imagine the model outputting accurate predictions close to 0 and 1 within the subset, and 0.5 everywhere else).

Configuration: By default, the variance is computed over all predictions across all ground-truth labels.

Example: Suppose we had data with 2 features: [['cat', 0.2], ['dog', 0.3], ['cat', 0.5], ['dog', 0.7], ['cat', 0.7], ['dog', 0.2]] and model predictions [0.3, 0.51, 0.7, 0.49, 0.9, 0.48]. Then the prediction variance for feature column 1, subset 'cat' would be 0.062.

Subset Rank Correlation

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the rank correlation of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction rank correlation over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar rank correlation between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, rank correlation is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose we had the following query-document pairs: [[(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 2), 'B'], [(qid: 2), 'B']], model predictions [2, 1, 1, 2], and true relevance ranks [1,2,1,2]. Then, the rank correlation over the feature subset 'A' would be -1, compared to the overall metric of 0.

Subset Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG)

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the NDCG of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction NDCG over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar NDCG between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, NDCG is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose we had the following query-document pairs: [[(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 2), 'B'], [(qid: 2), 'B']], model predictions [2, 1, 1, 2], and true relevance ranks [1,2,1,2]. Then, the NDCG over the feature subset 'A' would be 0.86, compared to the overall metric of 0.93.

Subset Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the MRR of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction MRR over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar MRR between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, MRR is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose we had the following query-document pairs: [[(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 1), 'A'], [(qid: 2), 'B'], [(qid: 2), 'B']], model predictions [2, 1, 1, 2], and true relevance ranks [1,2,1,2]. Then, the MRR over the feature subset 'A' would be 0.5, compared to the overall metric of 0.75.

Subset Precision

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Precision of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Precision over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar Precision between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, Precision is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose in our subset the ground truth has the following: [Microsoft Corp.] CEO [Steve Ballmer] announced the release of [Windows 7] today Suppose your actual extraction has the following: [Microsoft Corp.] [CEO] [Steve] Ballmer announced the release of Windows 7 [today] This has 1 true positive ([Microsoft Corp.]), 2 false negatives ([Steve Ballmer], [Windows 7]), and 3 false positives ([Steve], [CEO], [today]). This leads to a Precision of 0.25 on this subset of data. We then compare that to the overall Precision on the full dataset.

Subset Recall

This test checks whether the model performs equally well across a given subset of rows as it does across the whole dataset. The key detail displays the performance difference between the lowest performing subset and the overall population. The test first splits the dataset into various subsets depending on the quantiles of a given feature column. If the feature is categorical, the data is split based on the feature values. We then test whether the Recall of model predictions within a specific subset is significantly lower than the model prediction Recall over the entire 'population'.

Why it matters: Having similar Recall between different subgroups is an important indicator of performance bias; in general, bias is an important phenomenon in machine learning and not only contains implications for fairness and ethics, but also indicates failures in adequate feature representation and spurious correlation.

Configuration: By default, Recall is computed over all predictions/labels.

Example: Suppose in our subset the ground truth has the following: [Microsoft Corp.] CEO [Steve Ballmer] announced the release of [Windows 7] today Suppose your actual extraction has the following: [Microsoft Corp.] [CEO] [Steve] Ballmer announced the release of Windows 7 [today] This has 1 true positive ([Microsoft Corp.]), 2 false negatives ([Steve Ballmer], [Windows 7]), and 3 false positives ([Steve], [CEO], [today]). This leads to a Recall of 0.33 on this subset of data. We then compare that to the overall Recall on the full dataset.

Transformations

Abbreviation Expander

This test measures the robustness of your model to Abbreviation Expander transformations. It does this by taking a sample input, , and measuring the behavior of the model on the transformed input.

Why it matters: Production natural language input sequences can have errors from data preprocessing or human input (mistaken or adversarial). It is important that your NLP models are robust to the introduction of such errors.