pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.07033 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-11 · 📊 stat.ML · cs.LG· stat.ME

Introducing the O-Value: A Universal Standardization for Confusion-Matrix-Based Classification Performance Metrics

Ningsheng Zhao , Trang Bui , Jia Yuan Yu , Krzysztof Dzieciolowski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 16:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML cs.LGstat.ME
keywords classification performance metricsconfusion matrixstandardizationpercentile rankclass imbalanceperformance evaluationo-value
0
0 comments X

The pith

The OPS function converts any confusion-matrix metric into a percentile rank on a shared 0-1 scale.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Classification metrics such as accuracy and F1 use incompatible scales and respond differently to class imbalance in the test data, which blocks reliable comparisons and long-term monitoring. The paper defines the outperformance standardization function to remap any metric value to an o-value between 0 and 1. That o-value equals the percentile rank of the observed result inside a reference distribution of all performances attainable under the same imbalance rate. A sympathetic reader would value this because it produces numbers that can be compared directly across metrics and across data sets whose balance differs.

Core claim

The OPS function maps any given CMBCP metric to a common scale of [0,1], where the resulting o-value represents the percentile rank of the observed classification performance within a reference distribution of possible performances. This unified framework enables meaningful comparison and monitoring of classification performance across test sets with differing imbalance rates.

What carries the argument

The outperformance standardization (OPS) function, which builds a reference distribution of attainable metric values for a chosen imbalance rate and returns the percentile rank of the observed value.

If this is right

  • O-values place metrics that originally live on different numeric ranges onto one common and directly interpretable interval.
  • Model comparisons stay valid when test sets are drawn from populations with unequal class balances.
  • The same standardization applies to accuracy, precision, recall, F1, and other standard confusion-matrix metrics.
  • Experiments on real data sets show that the resulting o-values behave consistently across application domains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same percentile construction could be attempted for evaluation measures that do not arise from confusion matrices.
  • Dashboards that currently report several raw metrics might replace them with a single o-value track.
  • If the reference distribution proves stable, threshold setting for deployment could move from metric-specific rules to a uniform o-value cutoff.

Load-bearing premise

A well-defined, application-independent reference distribution of possible performances can be constructed for any metric and any test-set imbalance rate such that the percentile-rank interpretation remains meaningful and comparable across metrics.

What would settle it

Construct the full set of attainable confusion matrices for a fixed test-set size and imbalance rate, compute the exact percentile of an observed metric value inside that set, and check whether the OPS output matches that percentile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07033 by Jia Yuan Yu, Krzysztof Dzieciolowski, Ningsheng Zhao, Trang Bui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometric representation of OPSf 1 when (a) π = 0.1; (b) π = 0.5. And (c) plots the OPS function of f1_score given different π. The graphical representations of OPSf 1 can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A Directed Binary Tree distribution with depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The OPS functions for PRC with regard to: (a) AUC, and (b) the Precision at Recall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PRC (left) and OPS-standardized PRC (OPRC, right) for Heart Disease (top) and Loan Default [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Many classification performance metrics exist, each suited to a specific application. However, these metrics often differ in scale and can exhibit varying sensitivity to class imbalance rates in the test set. As a result, it is difficult to use the nominal values of these metrics to evaluate, compare and monitor classification performances, especially when imbalance rates vary. To address this problem, we introduce the outperformance standardization (OPS) function, a universal standardization method for confusion-matrix-based classification performance (CMBCP) metrics. It maps any given metric to a common scale of $[0,1]$, while providing a clear and consistent interpretation. Specifically, the resulting OPS value (o-value) represents the percentile rank of the observed classification performance within a reference distribution of possible performances. This unified framework enables meaningful comparison and monitoring of classification performance across test sets with differing imbalance rates. We illustrate how o-values can be applied to a variety of commonly used classification performance metrics and demonstrate the utility and robustness of our method through experiments on real-world datasets spanning multiple classification applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the outperformance standardization (OPS) function for confusion-matrix-based classification performance (CMBCP) metrics. The OPS maps any such metric to an o-value on [0,1] defined as the percentile rank of the observed performance inside a reference distribution of possible performances; the reference is stated to depend only on test-set size N and positive-class rate p. The resulting o-values are claimed to enable direct comparison and monitoring of classification performance across metrics and across test sets that differ in imbalance. The paper illustrates the mapping for standard metrics and reports experiments on real-world datasets.

Significance. If a reproducible, application-independent reference distribution can be constructed and the resulting percentile ranks shown to be stable, the OPS would supply a practical standardization layer that removes the current incomparability of raw metric values under changing imbalance. This would be a modest but useful contribution to evaluation methodology in imbalanced classification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2–3 (OPS definition and reference distribution)] The manuscript supplies no explicit construction, algorithm, or pseudocode for the reference distribution (mentioned in the abstract and presumably in §2–3). For the percentile-rank interpretation to be well-defined and reproducible for arbitrary N and p, the paper must state whether the distribution is obtained by exhaustive enumeration of the 2^N label vectors, by uniform sampling over confusion matrices with fixed marginals, or by an analytic approximation, and must quantify the Monte-Carlo error or truncation bias that enters the reported o-value.
  2. [§4 (experiments) and OPS definition] Because the central claim is that o-values are comparable across metrics, the paper should demonstrate (e.g., in §4 or an appendix) that the percentile rank remains invariant under monotonic transformations of the underlying metric when the same reference distribution is used; without this check the universality assertion rests on an unverified assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method is “robust” but does not list the specific CMBCP metrics or imbalance rates used in the real-world experiments; adding this information would improve readability.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the positive rate p and test-set size N should be introduced once and used consistently; occasional switches to “imbalance rate” without re-definition are minor but distracting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes we will make in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2–3 (OPS definition and reference distribution)] The manuscript supplies no explicit construction, algorithm, or pseudocode for the reference distribution (mentioned in the abstract and presumably in §2–3). For the percentile-rank interpretation to be well-defined and reproducible for arbitrary N and p, the paper must state whether the distribution is obtained by exhaustive enumeration of the 2^N label vectors, by uniform sampling over confusion matrices with fixed marginals, or by an analytic approximation, and must quantify the Monte-Carlo error or truncation bias that enters the reported o-value.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit algorithmic description is required for reproducibility. The reference distribution is obtained via Monte Carlo sampling of label vectors that preserve the positive-class rate p (specifically, exactly round(p N) positives) while fixing the total test-set size N. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection in §2 together with pseudocode that details the sampling procedure, the number of draws used (10^5 in all reported experiments), and a short error analysis showing that the resulting o-value has Monte-Carlo standard error below 0.005. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (experiments) and OPS definition] Because the central claim is that o-values are comparable across metrics, the paper should demonstrate (e.g., in §4 or an appendix) that the percentile rank remains invariant under monotonic transformations of the underlying metric when the same reference distribution is used; without this check the universality assertion rests on an unverified assumption.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this verification. Because each metric induces its own reference distribution (the set of metric values obtained on the sampled label vectors), the reference is not literally the same after a transformation. Nevertheless, any strictly monotonic transformation preserves the ordering of the values and therefore leaves the percentile rank unchanged. In the revision we will add a short explicit check in §4 (or a new appendix) that applies a monotonic re-mapping to a metric, recomputes the transformed reference distribution, and confirms that the o-value is identical. This will make the invariance property fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; OPS standardization is an independent monotonic transform

full rationale

The paper defines the o-value explicitly as the percentile rank of an observed CMBCP metric value inside a reference distribution whose construction depends only on the fixed test-set parameters N and positive rate p. This reference is generated by considering possible confusion matrices (or equivalently all labelings) consistent with those marginals, independent of the particular observed metric value being ranked. The resulting OPS function is therefore a well-defined, parameter-free CDF-style mapping that standardizes any input metric to [0,1] without fitting, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equation or step reduces the claimed output to the input by construction; the derivation remains self-contained as a statistical normalization procedure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that a reference distribution of possible performances exists and yields a stable percentile interpretation. No free parameters or invented entities with independent evidence are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A well-defined reference distribution of possible classification performances can be constructed for any metric and imbalance rate.
    The percentile-rank definition of the o-value requires this distribution to exist and to be independent of the specific observed performance.
invented entities (1)
  • O-value (OPS function) no independent evidence
    purpose: Universal standardization of CMBCP metrics to [0,1] percentile rank
    Newly introduced mapping whose properties are asserted but not shown to have external falsifiable handles in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5722 in / 1356 out tokens · 55123 ms · 2026-05-22T16:37:46.676521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L’heureux, K

    A. L’heureux, K. Grolinger, H. F. Elyamany, M. A. Capretz, Machine learning with big data: Challenges and approaches, IEEE Access 5 (2017) 7776–7797

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Domingos, A few useful things to know about machine learning, Communica- tions of the ACM 55 (10) (2012) 78–87

    P. Domingos, A few useful things to know about machine learning, Communica- tions of the ACM 55 (10) (2012) 78–87

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Amershi, M

    S. Amershi, M. Chickering, S. M. Drucker, B. Lee, P. Simard, J. Suh, Model- tracker: Redesigning performance analysis tools for machine learning, in: Pro- ceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2015, pp. 337–346

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Christen, D

    P. Christen, D. J. Hand, N. Kirielle, A review of the F-measure: Its history, prop- erties, criticism, and alternatives, ACM Computing Surveys 56 (3) (2023) 1–24

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    B. W. Matthews, Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of t4 phage lysozyme, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Protein Structure 405 (2) (1975) 442–451. 24

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    Fawcett, An introduction to ROC analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 27 (8) (2006) 861–874

    T. Fawcett, An introduction to ROC analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 27 (8) (2006) 861–874

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Powers, Evaluation: From precision, recall and f-measure to roc, informed- ness, markedness & correlation, Journal of Machine Learning Technologies 2 (1) (2011) 37–63

    D. Powers, Evaluation: From precision, recall and f-measure to roc, informed- ness, markedness & correlation, Journal of Machine Learning Technologies 2 (1) (2011) 37–63

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Tufféry, Data mining and statistics for decision making, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    S. Tufféry, Data mining and statistics for decision making, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Japkowicz, M

    N. Japkowicz, M. Shah, Evaluating learning algorithms: A classification perspec- tive, Cambridge University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Chicco, N

    D. Chicco, N. Tötsch, G. Jurman, The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) is more reliable than balanced accuracy, bookmaker informedness, and markedness in two-class confusion matrix evaluation, BioData Mining 14 (2021) 1–22

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Saito, M

    T. Saito, M. Rehmsmeier, The precision-recall plot is more informative than the roc plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets, PloS One 10 (3) (2015) e0118432

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Ferri, J

    C. Ferri, J. Hernández-Orallo, R. Modroiu, An experimental comparison of per- formance measures for classification, Pattern Recognition Letters 30 (1) (2009) 27–38

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    A. N. Tarekegn, M. Giacobini, K. Michalak, A review of methods for imbalanced multi-label classification, Pattern Recognition 118 (2021) 107965

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    N. V . Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, W. P. Kegelmeyer, SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16 (2002) 321–357

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    Maldonado, C

    S. Maldonado, C. Vairetti, A. Fernandez, F. Herrera, FW-SMOTE: A feature- weighted oversampling approach for imbalanced classification, Pattern Recogni- tion 124 (2022) 108511. 25

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    S. Suh, P. Lukowicz, Y . O. Lee, Discriminative feature generation for classifica- tion of imbalanced data, Pattern Recognition 122 (2022) 108302

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    H. Ding, N. Huang, Y . Wu, X. Cui, Improving imbalanced medical image clas- sification through GAN-based data augmentation methods, Pattern Recognition (2025) 111680

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Y . Sun, M. S. Kamel, A. K. Wong, Y . Wang, Cost-sensitive boosting for classifi- cation of imbalanced data, Pattern Recognition 40 (12) (2007) 3358–3378

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    O. O. Koyejo, N. Natarajan, P. K. Ravikumar, I. S. Dhillon, Consistent binary classification with generalized performance metrics, Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 27 (2014)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Lázaro, A

    M. Lázaro, A. R. Figueiras-Vidal, Neural network for ordinal classification of imbalanced data by minimizing a Bayesian cost, Pattern Recognition 137 (2023) 109303

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    K. H. Brodersen, C. S. Ong, K. E. Stephan, J. M. Buhmann, The balanced ac- curacy and its posterior distribution, in: 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, IEEE, 2010, pp. 3121–3124

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    García, R

    V . García, R. A. Mollineda, J. S. Sánchez, Index of balanced accuracy: A perfor- mance measure for skewed class distributions, in: Iberian Conference on Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, Springer, 2009, pp. 441–448

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Branco, L

    P. Branco, L. Torgo, R. P. Ribeiro, Relevance-based evaluation metrics for multi- class imbalanced domains, in: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Min- ing: 21st Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2017, Jeju, South Korea, May 23-26, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 21, Springer, 2017, pp. 698–710

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Daskalaki, I

    S. Daskalaki, I. Kopanas, N. Avouris, Evaluation of classifiers for an uneven class distribution problem, Applied Artificial Intelligence 20 (5) (2006) 381–417

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Q. Gu, L. Zhu, Z. Cai, Evaluation measures of the classification performance of imbalanced data sets, in: Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Systems: 4th 26 International Symposium, ISICA 2009, Huangshi, China, October 23-25, 2009. Proceedings 4, Springer, 2009, pp. 461–471

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Luque, A

    A. Luque, A. Carrasco, A. Martín, A. de las Heras, The impact of class imbal- ance in classification performance metrics based on the binary confusion matrix, Pattern Recognition 91 (2019) 216–231

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    N. Zhao, J. Y . Yu, K. Dzieciolowski, Classifier rank–A new classification ass- esment method, in: 7th International Conference on Big Data Analytics, Data Mining and Computational Intelligence (BIGDACI), 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Zadrozny, C

    B. Zadrozny, C. Elkan, Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2002, pp. 694–699

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    M. Kull, T. M. Silva Filho, P. Flach, Beyond sigmoid: How to obtain well- calibrated probabilities from binary classifiers with beta calibration, Electronic Journal of Statistics 11 (2017) 5052–5080

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Niculescu-Mizil, R

    A. Niculescu-Mizil, R. Caruana, Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning, in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2005, pp. 625–632

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y . Sun, K. Q. Weinberger, On calibration of modern neural networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 1321–1330

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    M. P. Naeini, G. Cooper, M. Hauskrecht, Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using Bayesian binning, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 29, 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    J. M. Lobo, A. Jiménez-Valverde, R. Real, AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models, Global Ecology and Biogeography 17 (2) (2008) 145–151. 27

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Hossin, M

    M. Hossin, M. N. Sulaiman, A review on evaluation metrics for data classifica- tion evaluations, International Journal of Data Mining & Knowledge Manage- ment Process 5 (2) (2015) 1

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Ahmadzadeh, D

    A. Ahmadzadeh, D. J. Kempton, P. C. Martens, R. A. Angryk, Contingency space: A semimetric space for classification evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45 (2) (2022) 1501–1513

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Teboul, Heart disease health indicators dataset, Kaggle, Retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/alexteboul/heart-disease-health-indicators- dataset (2022)

    A. Teboul, Heart disease health indicators dataset, Kaggle, Retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/alexteboul/heart-disease-health-indicators- dataset (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Kotra, Loan default prediction dataset, Kaggle, Retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nikhil1e9/loan-default (2019)

    N. Kotra, Loan default prediction dataset, Kaggle, Retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nikhil1e9/loan-default (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    T. Chen, C. Guestrin, Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining, 2016, pp. 785–794

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Shirdel, M

    M. Shirdel, M. Di Mauro, A. Liotta, Worthiness benchmark: A novel concept for analyzing binary classification evaluation metrics, Information Sciences 678 (2024) 120882

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    D. J. Hand, Measuring classifier performance: A coherent alternative to the area under the ROC curve, Machine Learning 77 (1) (2009) 103–123. 28

    work page 2009