> Accuracy remained high (69%) even when controlling for age, gender, and ethnicity.
Really it is more complex than that, but fundamentally you try to say “how accurate can we be using just age, gender, and ethnicity” and use that as your controlled benchmark.
I'm asking what the literal metric is.
edit: and I don't think your explanation really works for accuracy, because accuracy isn't a relative measure, like, say, R2.
> The accuracy is expressed as AUC, or a fraction of correct guesses when distinguishing between all possible pairs of faces—one conservative and one liberal.
I've never seen something like this. Maybe this is a normal procedure?
But I would be worried that the number of old black conservative women would be really small. Seems a bit sketchy
The real question is whether the tool can beat a lookup table of age, race, and gender probabilities. The tool isn't going to be winning points of phrenology here. Weight, hair color, and hairstyle would also likely tell you a lot.
I don't have any particular reason to believe this tool wouldn't work, but let's not pretend it's getting their by phrenology-esque topologies of people's faces.
A randomly chosen black individual in the united states has a > 72% chance of leaning democrat. A randomly chosen hispanic individual is ~55-65% chance of leaning democrat. I don't find it crazy to imagine they've got a few other smaller features to boost it.