Matthew B. A. McDermott, Haoran Zhang, Lasse Hyldig Hansen, Giovanni Angelotti, Jack Gallifant
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
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 AUP ...
RC 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.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
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.
Only historical official repository was found (hzhang0/auc_bias).
Open hzhang0/auc_biasHardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
Risk flags
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
Risk flags
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
Risk flags
Only a historical official implementation is available.
Use with caution for new projects; verify against current tooling and maintained community alternatives.
Hardware requirements
Dependencies pinned, manual setup needed
Quick start
git clone https://github.com/hzhang0/auc_bias.git
conda env create -f environment.yml && conda activate <env-name>No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Lassehhansen/arxiv-search
Analyzing different ML model comparison metrics
No additional community repositories detected yet.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXNeed human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.