MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321214126 · doi:10.1186/s13040-023-00322-4

The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should replace the ROC AUC as the standard metric for assessing binary classification

2023· article· en· W4321214126 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Chicco, Giuseppe Jurman

Bibliographic record

VenueBioData Mining · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicMatthews correlation coefficientBinary classificationStatisticsConfusion matrixFalse positive rateArtificial intelligenceCorrelationMathematicsBinary numberSensitivity (control systems)Metric (unit)Classifier (UML)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningSupport vector machineArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binary classification is a common task for which machine learning and computational statistics are used, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) has become the common standard metric to evaluate binary classifications in most scientific fields. The ROC curve has true positive rate (also called sensitivity or recall) on the y axis and false positive rate on the x axis, and the ROC AUC can range from 0 (worst result) to 1 (perfect result). The ROC AUC, however, has several flaws and drawbacks. This score is generated including predictions that obtained insufficient sensitivity and specificity, and moreover it does not say anything about positive predictive value (also known as precision) nor negative predictive value (NPV) obtained by the classifier, therefore potentially generating inflated overoptimistic results. Since it is common to include ROC AUC alone without precision and negative predictive value, a researcher might erroneously conclude that their classification was successful. Furthermore, a given point in the ROC space does not identify a single confusion matrix nor a group of matrices sharing the same MCC value. Indeed, a given (sensitivity, specificity) pair can cover a broad MCC range, which casts doubts on the reliability of ROC AUC as a performance measure. In contrast, the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) generates a high score in its [Formula: see text] interval only if the classifier scored a high value for all the four basic rates of the confusion matrix: sensitivity, specificity, precision, and negative predictive value. A high MCC (for example, MCC [Formula: see text] 0.9), moreover, always corresponds to a high ROC AUC, and not vice versa. In this short study, we explain why the Matthews correlation coefficient should replace the ROC AUC as standard statistic in all the scientific studies involving a binary classification, in all scientific fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations513
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioData MiningSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207