Area Under The ROC Is Not Accuracy

Stephen Chen debunks bad journalistic summaries of a Google research paper:

Journalists latched onto Google’s NN 0.95 score vs. the comparison 0.86 (see EWS Strawman below), as the accuracy of determining mortality. However the actual metric the researchers used is AUROC (Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) and not a measure of predictive accuracy that indexes the difference between the predicted vs. actual like RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) or MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error). Some articles even erroneously try to explain the 0.95 as the odds ratio.

Just as the concept of significance has different meanings to statisticians and laypersons, AUROC as a measure of model accuracy does not mean the probability of Google’s NN predicting mortality accurately as journalists/laypersons have taken it to mean. The ROC (see sample above) is a plot of a model’s False Positive Rate (i.e. predicting mortality where there is none) vs. the True Positive Rate (i.e. correctly predicting mortality). A larger area under the curve (AUROC) means the model produces less False Positives, not the certainty of mortality as journalists erroneously suggest.

The researchers themselves made no claim to soothsayer abilities, what they said in the paper was:

… (their) deep learning model would fire half the number of alerts of a traditional predictive model, resulting in many fewer false positives.

It’s an interesting article and a reminder of the importance of terminological precision (something I personally am not particularly good at).

Related Posts

Where Machine Learning And Econometrics Collide

Dave Giles shares some thoughts on how machine learning and econometrics relate: What is Machine Learning (ML), and how does it differ from Statistics (and hence, implicitly, from Econometrics)? Those are big questions, but I think that they’re ones that econometricians should be thinking about. And if I were starting out in Econometrics today, I’d […]

Read More

Solving Naive Bayes By Hand

I have a post that requires math and is meaner toward the Buffalo Bills than I normally am: Trust the ProcessThere are three steps to the process of solving the simplest of Naive Bayes algorithms. They are:1. Find the probability of winning a game (that is, our prior probability).2. Find the probability of winning given each input variable: whether Josh Allen starts the game, whether the team is […]

Read More


July 2018
« Jun Aug »