AUC: a statistically consistent and more discriminating measure than accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive accuracy has been used as the main and often only evaluation criterion for the predictive performance of classification learning algorithms. In recent years, the area under the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) curve, or simply AUC, has been proposed as an alternative single-number measure for evaluating learning algorithms. In this paper, we prove that AUC is a better measure than accuracy. More specifically, we present rigourous definitions on consistency and discriminancy in comparing two evaluation measures for learning algorithms. We then present empirical evaluations and a formal proof to establish that AUC is indeed statistically consistent and more discriminating than accuracy. Our result is quite significant since we formally prove that, for the first time, AUC is a better measure than accuracy in the evaluation of learning algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".