Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Closer Look at AUROC and AUPRC under Class Imbalance

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.06091 v4 pith:4I2UO5WU submitted 2024-01-11 cs.LG stat.ME

classification cs.LGstat.ME
keywords auprcaurocclassimbalancemodelunderareaclaim
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In machine learning (ML), a widespread claim 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 tasks with class imbalance. This paper refutes this notion on two fronts. First, we theoretically characterize the behavior of AUROC and AUPRC in the presence of model mistakes, establishing clearly that AUPRC is not generally superior in cases of class imbalance. We further show that AUPRC can be a harmful metric as it can unduly favor model improvements in subpopulations with more frequent positive labels, heightening algorithmic disparities. Next, we empirically support our theory using experiments on both semi-synthetic and real-world fairness datasets. Prompted by these insights, we conduct a review of over 1.5 million scientific papers to understand the origin of this invalid claim, finding that it is often made without citation, misattributed to papers that do not argue this point, and aggressively over-generalized from source arguments. Our findings represent a dual contribution: a significant technical advancement in understanding the relationship between AUROC and AUPRC and a stark warning about unchecked assumptions in the ML community.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Likert or Not: LLM Absolute Relevance Judgments on Fine-Grained Ordinal Scales

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Pointwise LLM scoring with an 11-point ordinal scale is statistically competitive with listwise ranking for 31 of 40 model-dataset combinations on NDCG@10.

  2. We Need to Rethink Benchmarking in Anomaly Detection

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Evaluating anomaly detection by averaging over diverse datasets is misleading; the paper proposes scenario-based benchmarking organized by shared structural properties.

  3. Critical Appraisal of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

    cs.LG 2025-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A scoping review of 62 fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI finds a fragmented, threshold-dependent landscape with only one clinical utility metric.

Pith tools