A Closer Look at AUROC and AUPRC under Class Imbalance
2401.06091
0
2
Abstract
In machine learning (ML), a widespread adage is that the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) is a superior metric for model comparison to the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for binary classification tasks with class imbalance. This paper challenges this notion through novel mathematical analysis, illustrating that AUROC and AUPRC can be concisely related in probabilistic terms. We demonstrate that AUPRC, contrary to popular belief, is not superior in cases of class imbalance and might even be a harmful metric, given its inclination to unduly favor model improvements in subpopulations with more frequent positive labels. This bias can inadvertently heighten algorithmic disparities. Prompted by these insights, a thorough review of existing ML literature was conducted, utilizing large language models to analyze over 1.5 million papers from arXiv. Our investigation focused on the prevalence and substantiation of the purported AUPRC superiority. The results expose a significant deficit in empirical backing and a trend of misattributions that have fuelled the widespread acceptance of AUPRC's supposed advantages. Our findings represent a dual contribution: a significant technical advancement in understanding metric behaviors and a stark warning about unchecked assumptions in the ML community. All experiments are accessible at https://github.com/mmcdermott/AUC_is_all_you_need.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper examines the properties of two commonly used performance metrics in machine learning: the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve and the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC).
- The authors investigate how these metrics behave under class imbalance, a common challenge in real-world datasets.
- They provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of AUROC and AUPRC, and how they can be used effectively in different scenarios.
Plain English Explanation
In machine learning, we often need to evaluate the performance of our models. Two popular metrics for this are AUROC and AUPRC.
AUROC measures how well a model can distinguish between two classes, like "spam" and "not spam". It shows how the model's ability to correctly identify the positive class (e.g., spam) changes as the decision threshold is adjusted.
AUPRC, on the other hand, focuses more on the model's precision - how many of the positive predictions it makes are actually correct. This is especially important when the classes are imbalanced, meaning one class is much rarer than the other.
The key insight from this paper is that AUROC and AUPRC provide complementary information. AUROC favors overall model improvements in an unbiased way, while AUPRC prioritizes fixing mistakes on the rarer, more important class first. This makes AUPRC better suited for imbalanced datasets, where correctly identifying the minority class is crucial.
The authors also explain how AUROC and AUPRC are probabilistically related, meaning they can provide redundant information in some cases. Understanding these nuances can help researchers choose the right metric for their specific problem and dataset.
Technical Explanation
The paper first establishes the probabilistic relationship between AUROC and AUPRC, showing that they can be derived from each other under certain assumptions. This helps explain why they often provide similar information, but also highlights how they can diverge in certain scenarios.
The authors then delve into how these metrics behave under class imbalance. They demonstrate that AUROC is an unbiased measure of overall model performance, while AUPRC is more sensitive to mistakes on the minority class. This makes AUPRC a better choice when the goal is to prioritize correctly identifying the rare, important class.
Through analytical and empirical analysis, the paper illustrates how AUROC and AUPRC can lead to different conclusions about model performance, especially when the data is skewed. They also discuss how the choice of metric can impact model development and optimization strategies.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-researched analysis of AUROC and AUPRC, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate use cases. However, the authors acknowledge that their study is limited to binary classification problems, and more research may be needed to extend the insights to multi-class settings.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the practical implications of choosing between AUROC and AUPRC in real-world applications. While the theoretical analysis is valuable, more guidance on how to navigate this decision in practice would be helpful for researchers and practitioners.
Another area for potential further research is the interaction between AUROC, AUPRC, and other performance metrics, such as F1-score or balanced accuracy. Understanding how these metrics relate to each other and which ones are most suitable for different scenarios could provide a more comprehensive framework for model evaluation.
Conclusion
This paper offers a deep dive into the properties of AUROC and AUPRC, two widely used performance metrics in machine learning. The authors demonstrate that these metrics provide complementary information, with AUROC favoring overall model improvements and AUPRC prioritizing the accurate identification of the minority class.
These insights can help researchers and practitioners choose the right metric for their specific problem and dataset, leading to more informed model development and evaluation decisions. By understanding the nuances of AUROC and AUPRC, the machine learning community can make more effective use of these tools and improve the real-world applicability of their models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
πΌοΈ
On Fixing the Right Problems in Predictive Analytics: AUC Is Not the Problem
Ryan S. Baker, Nigel Bosch, Stephen Hutt, Andres F. Zambrano, Alex J. Bowers
0
0
Recently, ACM FAccT published an article by Kwegyir-Aggrey and colleagues (2023), critiquing the use of AUC ROC in predictive analytics in several domains. In this article, we offer a critique of that article. Specifically, we highlight technical inaccuracies in that paper's comparison of metrics, mis-specification of the interpretation and goals of AUC ROC, the article's use of the accuracy metric as a gold standard for comparison to AUC ROC, and the article's application of critiques solely to AUC ROC for concerns that would apply to the use of any metric. We conclude with a re-framing of the very valid concerns raised in that article, and discuss how the use of AUC ROC can remain a valid and appropriate practice in a well-informed predictive analytics approach taking those concerns into account. We conclude by discussing the combined use of multiple metrics, including machine learning bias metrics, and AUC ROC's place in such an approach. Like broccoli, AUC ROC is healthy, but also like broccoli, researchers and practitioners in our field shouldn't eat a diet of only AUC ROC.
4/11/2024
Multiclass ROC
Liang Wang, Luis Carvalho
0
0
Model evaluation is of crucial importance in modern statistics application. The construction of ROC and calculation of AUC have been widely used for binary classification evaluation. Recent research generalizing the ROC/AUC analysis to multi-class classification has problems in at least one of the four areas: 1. failure to provide sensible plots 2. being sensitive to imbalanced data 3. unable to specify mis-classification cost and 4. unable to provide evaluation uncertainty quantification. Borrowing from a binomial matrix factorization model, we provide an evaluation metric summarizing the pair-wise multi-class True Positive Rate (TPR) and False Positive Rate (FPR) with one-dimensional vector representation. Visualization on the representation vector measures the relative speed of increment between TPR and FPR across all the classes pairs, which in turns provides a ROC plot for the multi-class counterpart. An integration over those factorized vector provides a binary AUC-equivalent summary on the classifier performance. Mis-clasification weights specification and bootstrapped confidence interval are also enabled to accommodate a variety of of evaluation criteria. To support our findings, we conducted extensive simulation studies and compared our method to the pair-wise averaged AUC statistics on benchmark datasets.
4/23/2024
Schroedinger's Threshold: When the AUC doesn't predict Accuracy
Juri Opitz
0
0
The Area Under Curve measure (AUC) seems apt to evaluate and compare diverse models, possibly without calibration. An important example of AUC application is the evaluation and benchmarking of models that predict faithfulness of generated text. But we show that the AUC yields an academic and optimistic notion of accuracy that can misalign with the actual accuracy observed in application, yielding significant changes in benchmark rankings. To paint a more realistic picture of downstream model performance (and prepare a model for actual application), we explore different calibration modes, testing calibration data and method.
4/5/2024
π
Robust performance metrics for imbalanced classification problems
Hajo Holzmann, Bernhard Klar
0
0
We show that established performance metrics in binary classification, such as the F-score, the Jaccard similarity coefficient or Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC), are not robust to class imbalance in the sense that if the proportion of the minority class tends to $0$, the true positive rate (TPR) of the Bayes classifier under these metrics tends to $0$ as well. Thus, in imbalanced classification problems, these metrics favour classifiers which ignore the minority class. To alleviate this issue we introduce robust modifications of the F-score and the MCC for which, even in strongly imbalanced settings, the TPR is bounded away from $0$. We numerically illustrate the behaviour of the various performance metrics in simulations as well as on a credit default data set. We also discuss connections to the ROC and precision-recall curves and give recommendations on how to combine their usage with performance metrics.
4/12/2024