Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities. See how.

Explore the options below.

In which of the following scenarios would a high accuracy value suggest that the ML model is doing a good job?
A deadly, but curable, medical condition afflicts .01% of the population. An ML model uses symptoms as features and predicts this affliction with an accuracy of 99.99%.
Accuracy is a poor metric here. After all, even a "dumb" model that always predicts "not sick" would still be 99.99% accurate. Mistakenly predicting "not sick" for a person who actually is sick could be deadly.
An expensive robotic chicken crosses a very busy road a thousand times per day. An ML model evaluates traffic patterns and predicts when this chicken can safely cross the street with an accuracy of 99.99%.
A 99.99% accuracy value on a very busy road strongly suggests that the ML model is far better than chance. In some settings, however, the cost of making even a small number of mistakes is still too high. 99.99% accuracy means that the expensive chicken will need to be replaced, on average, every 10 days. (The chicken might also cause extensive damage to cars that it hits.)
In the game of roulette, a ball is dropped on a spinning wheel and eventually lands in one of 38 slots. Using visual features (the spin of the ball, the position of the wheel when the ball was dropped, the height of the ball over the wheel), an ML model can predict the slot that the ball will land in with an accuracy of 4%.
This ML model is making predictions far better than chance; a random guess would be correct 1/38 of the time—yielding an accuracy of 2.6%. Although the model's accuracy is "only" 4%, the benefits of success far outweigh the disadvantages of failure.