Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Mar 4;10(3):e0118432.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118432. eCollection 2015.

The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets

Takaya Saito et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Binary classifiers are routinely evaluated with performance measures such as sensitivity and specificity, and performance is frequently illustrated with Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) plots. Alternative measures such as positive predictive value (PPV) and the associated Precision/Recall (PRC) plots are used less frequently. Many bioinformatics studies develop and evaluate classifiers that are to be applied to strongly imbalanced datasets in which the number of negatives outweighs the number of positives significantly. While ROC plots are visually appealing and provide an overview of a classifier's performance across a wide range of specificities, one can ask whether ROC plots could be misleading when applied in imbalanced classification scenarios. We show here that the visual interpretability of ROC plots in the context of imbalanced datasets can be deceptive with respect to conclusions about the reliability of classification performance, owing to an intuitive but wrong interpretation of specificity. PRC plots, on the other hand, can provide the viewer with an accurate prediction of future classification performance due to the fact that they evaluate the fraction of true positives among positive predictions. Our findings have potential implications for the interpretation of a large number of studies that use ROC plots on imbalanced datasets.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Actual and predicted labels generate four outcomes of the confusion matrix.
(A) The left oval shows two actual labels: positives (P; blue; top half) and negatives (N; red; bottom half). The right oval shows two predicted labels: “predicted as positive” (light green; top left half) and “predicted as negative” (orange; bottom right half). A black line represents a classifier that separates the data into “predicted as positive” indicated by the upward arrow “P” and “predicted as negative” indicated by the downward arrow “N”. (B) Combining two actual and two predicted labels produces four outcomes: True positive (TP; green), False negative (FN; purple), False positive (FP; yellow), and True negative (TN; red). (C) Two ovals show examples of TPs, FPs, TNs, and FNs for balanced (left) and imbalanced (right) data. Both examples use 20 data instances including 10 positives and 10 negatives for the balanced, and 5 positives and 15 negatives for the imbalanced example.
Fig 2
Fig 2. PRC curves have one-to-one relationships with ROC curves.
(A) The ROC space contains one basic ROC curve and points (black) as well as four alternative curves and points; tied lower bound (green), tied upper bound (dark yellow), convex hull (light blue), and default values for missing prediction data (magenta). The numbers next to the ROC points indicate the ranks of the scores to calculate FPRs and TPRs from 10 positives and 10 negatives (See Table A in S1 File for the actual scores). (B) The PRC space contains the PR points corresponding to those in the ROC space.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Combinations of positive and negative score distributions generate five different levels for the simulation analysis.
We randomly sampled 250 negatives and 250 positives for Rand, ER-, ER+, Excel, and Perf, followed by converting the scores to the ranks from 1 to 500. Red circles represent 250 negatives, whereas green triangles represent 250 positives.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Simple scheme diagrams on the generation of datasets T1 and T2.
T1 contains miRNA genes from miRBase as positives. Negatives were generated by randomly shuffling the nucleotides of the positives. For T2, the RNAz tool was used to generate miRNA gene candidates. Positives are candidate genes that overlap with the actual miRNA genes from miRBase.
Fig 5
Fig 5. PRC is changed but the other plots are unchanged between balanced and imbalanced data.
Each panel contains two plots with balanced (left) and imbalanced (right) for (A) ROC, (B) CROC with exponential function: f(x) = (1 - exp(-αx))/(1 - exp(-α)) where α = 7, (C) CC, and (D) PRC. Five curves represent five different performance levels: Random (Rand; red), Poor early retrieval (ER-; blue), Good early retrieval (ER+; green), Excellent (Excel; purple), and Perfect (Perf; orange).
Fig 6
Fig 6. Two PubMed search results show the annual number of papers found between 2002 and 2012.
The upper barplot shows the number of papers found by the term “ROC”, whereas the lower plot shows the number found by the term “((Support Vector Machine) AND Genome-wide) NOT Association”.
Fig 7
Fig 7. A re-analysis of the MiRFinder study reveals that PRC is stronger than ROC on imbalanced data.
ROC and PRC plots show the performances of six different tools, MiRFinder (red), miPred (blue), RNAmicro (green), ProMiR (purple), and RNAfold (orange). A gray solid line represents a baseline. The re-analysis used two independent test sets, T1 and T2. The four plots are for (A) ROC on T1, (B) PRC on T1, (C) ROC on T2, and (D) PRC on T2.

References

    1. Tarca AL, Carey VJ, Chen XW, Romero R, Draghici S. Machine learning and its applications to biology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007;3: e116 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Krogh A. What are artificial neural networks? Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26: 195–197. 10.1038/nbt1386 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ben-Hur A, Ong CS, Sonnenburg S, Scholkopf B, Ratsch G. Support vector machines and kernels for computational biology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4: e1000173 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000173 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143: 29–36. - PubMed
    1. He H, Garcia E. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2009;21: 1263–1284.

Publication types