Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 30 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 18 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 12 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 91 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 184 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 462 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Benchmarking Deep AUROC Optimization: Loss Functions and Algorithmic Choices (2203.14177v3)

Published 27 Mar 2022 in cs.LG and cs.AI

Abstract: The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) has been vigorously applied for imbalanced classification and moreover combined with deep learning techniques. However, there is no existing work that provides sound information for peers to choose appropriate deep AUROC maximization techniques. In this work, we fill this gap from three aspects. (i) We benchmark a variety of loss functions with different algorithmic choices for deep AUROC optimization problem. We study the loss functions in two categories: pairwise loss and composite loss, which includes a total of 10 loss functions. Interestingly, we find composite loss, as an innovative loss function class, shows more competitive performance than pairwise loss from both training convergence and testing generalization perspectives. Nevertheless, data with more corrupted labels favors a pairwise symmetric loss. (ii) Moreover, we benchmark and highlight the essential algorithmic choices such as positive sampling rate, regularization, normalization/activation, and optimizers. Key findings include: higher positive sampling rate is likely to be beneficial for deep AUROC maximization; different datasets favors different weights of regularizations; appropriate normalization techniques, such as sigmoid and $\ell_2$ score normalization, could improve model performance. (iii) For optimization aspect, we benchmark SGD-type, Momentum-type, and Adam-type optimizers for both pairwise and composite loss. Our findings show that although Adam-type method is more competitive from training perspective, but it does not outperform others from testing perspective.

Citations (9)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.