ASD-Bench: A Four-Axis Comprehensive Benchmark of AI Models for Autism Spectrum Disorder

TL;DR

ASD-Bench is a comprehensive benchmark evaluating various AI models across age groups and axes like performance, interpretability, and robustness for autism spectrum disorder screening.

Contribution

Introduces a systematic, multi-axis benchmark for AI models on ASD detection across different age cohorts using diverse model architectures.

Findings

Adult models achieve perfect F1 and AUC scores.

Adolescents are more challenging, with lower F1 scores.

Feature importance varies significantly across age groups.

Abstract

Automated ASD screening tools remain limited by single-architecture evaluations, axis-restricted assessment, and near-exclusive focus on adult cohorts, obscuring age-specific diagnostic patterns critical for early intervention. We introduce ASD-Bench, a systematic tabular benchmark evaluating ML, deep learning, and foundation model configurations across three age cohorts (children 1-11 yr, adolescents 12-16 yr, adults 17-64 yr) on four axes: predictive performance, calibration, interpretability, and adversarial robustness. Applied to a curated v3 dataset of 4,068 AQ-10 records, our benchmark spans classical models (XGBoost, AdaBoost, Random Forest, Logistic Regression), neural networks (MLP), deep tabular transformers (TabNet, TabTransformer, FT-Transformer), and TabPFN v2. We introduce the Heuristic Aggregate Penalty (HAP): a cost-sensitive metric penalising false negatives more heavily and incorporating cross-validation variance for deployment stability. Adult classification yields high performance (10/17 models achieve perfect F1 and AUC), while adolescents present a harder task (F1 ceiling 0.837 vs. 0.915 for children). Feature hierarchies shift across cohorts: A9 (social motivation) dominates for children, A5 (pattern recognition) leads for adolescents, and adults exhibit a flatter importance profile consistent with developmental social masking. Accuracy and calibration are dissociated: AdaBoost achieves F1=1.000 on adults with ECE=0.302, confirming single-metric evaluation is insufficient for clinical AI. Cohort-specific deployment recommendations are provided. All findings should be interpreted as proof-of-concept evidence on questionnaire-derived labels rather than clinically validated diagnostic performance.