Facing Imbalanced Data--Recommendations for the Use of Performance Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing facial action units (AUs) is important for situation analysis and automated video annotation. Previous work has emphasized face tracking and registration and the choice of features classifiers. Relatively neglected is the effect of imbalanced data for action unit detection. While the machine learning community has become aware of the problem of skewed data for training classifiers, little attention has been paid to how skew may bias performance metrics. To address this question, we conducted experiments using both simulated classifiers and three major databases that differ in size, type of FACS coding, and degree of skew. We evaluated influence of skew on both threshold metrics (Accuracy, F-score, Cohen's kappa, and Krippendorf's alpha) and rank metrics (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and precision-recall curve). With exception of area under the ROC curve, all were attenuated by skewed distributions, in many cases, dramatically so. While ROC was unaffected by skew, precision-recall curves suggest that ROC may mask poor performance. Our findings suggest that skew is a critical factor in evaluating performance metrics. To avoid or minimize skew-biased estimates of performance, we recommend reporting skew-normalized scores along with the obtained ones.
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 | 0.193 | 0.510 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".