Inverse Relationship Between Precision and Recall Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsRelationship between KS, AUROC, and GiniTerm for relative recallIs this a good classified model based confusion matrix and classification report?How do I pick “K” for precision at K and recall at K?How to calculate Precision and Recall using confusion matrix in Matlab?Can tuning individual precision and recall classification thresholds improve deep learning models?Matrix Confusion - Get Model PrecisionPrecision and Recall if not binaryWhy validation loss worsens while precision/recall continue to improve?Hands on Machine Learning with Scikit Learn and TensorFlow Confusion Matrix with VERY BAD score
Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?
Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
Why is black pepper both grey and black?
Why does Python start at index 1 when iterating an array backwards?
How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?
Right-skewed distribution with mean equals to mode?
List *all* the tuples!
Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?
How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?
Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?
What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?
Should I use Javascript Classes or Apex Classes in Lightning Web Components?
3 doors, three guards, one stone
Does polymorph use a PC’s CR or its level?
Is a manifold-with-boundary with given interior and non-empty boundary essentially unique?
Examples of mediopassive verb constructions
Disable hyphenation for an entire paragraph
Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?
Check which numbers satisfy the condition [A*B*C = A! + B! + C!]
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
Inverse Relationship Between Precision and Recall
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire
2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsRelationship between KS, AUROC, and GiniTerm for relative recallIs this a good classified model based confusion matrix and classification report?How do I pick “K” for precision at K and recall at K?How to calculate Precision and Recall using confusion matrix in Matlab?Can tuning individual precision and recall classification thresholds improve deep learning models?Matrix Confusion - Get Model PrecisionPrecision and Recall if not binaryWhy validation loss worsens while precision/recall continue to improve?Hands on Machine Learning with Scikit Learn and TensorFlow Confusion Matrix with VERY BAD score
$begingroup$
I made some search to learn precision and recall and I saw some graphs represents inverse relationship between precision and recall and I started to think about it to clarify subject. I wonder the inverse relationship always hold? Suppose I have a binary classification problem and there are positive and negative labeled classes. After training some of the actual positive examples are predicted as true positives and some of them false negatives and some of the actual negative examples are predicted as true negatives and some of them false positives. To calculate precision and recall I use these formulas:
$$Precision = fracTPTP + FP$$ and $$Recall = fracTPTP + FN$$ If I decrease false negatives then true positives increases and in that case don't precision and recall both increase?
accuracy confusion-matrix
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I made some search to learn precision and recall and I saw some graphs represents inverse relationship between precision and recall and I started to think about it to clarify subject. I wonder the inverse relationship always hold? Suppose I have a binary classification problem and there are positive and negative labeled classes. After training some of the actual positive examples are predicted as true positives and some of them false negatives and some of the actual negative examples are predicted as true negatives and some of them false positives. To calculate precision and recall I use these formulas:
$$Precision = fracTPTP + FP$$ and $$Recall = fracTPTP + FN$$ If I decrease false negatives then true positives increases and in that case don't precision and recall both increase?
accuracy confusion-matrix
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I made some search to learn precision and recall and I saw some graphs represents inverse relationship between precision and recall and I started to think about it to clarify subject. I wonder the inverse relationship always hold? Suppose I have a binary classification problem and there are positive and negative labeled classes. After training some of the actual positive examples are predicted as true positives and some of them false negatives and some of the actual negative examples are predicted as true negatives and some of them false positives. To calculate precision and recall I use these formulas:
$$Precision = fracTPTP + FP$$ and $$Recall = fracTPTP + FN$$ If I decrease false negatives then true positives increases and in that case don't precision and recall both increase?
accuracy confusion-matrix
New contributor
$endgroup$
I made some search to learn precision and recall and I saw some graphs represents inverse relationship between precision and recall and I started to think about it to clarify subject. I wonder the inverse relationship always hold? Suppose I have a binary classification problem and there are positive and negative labeled classes. After training some of the actual positive examples are predicted as true positives and some of them false negatives and some of the actual negative examples are predicted as true negatives and some of them false positives. To calculate precision and recall I use these formulas:
$$Precision = fracTPTP + FP$$ and $$Recall = fracTPTP + FN$$ If I decrease false negatives then true positives increases and in that case don't precision and recall both increase?
accuracy confusion-matrix
accuracy confusion-matrix
New contributor
New contributor
edited Apr 11 at 13:41
Esmailian
3,311420
3,311420
New contributor
asked Apr 11 at 11:48
Tolga KarahanTolga Karahan
335
335
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If we decrease the false negative (select more positives), recall always increases, but precision may increase or decrease. Generally, for models better than random, precision and recall have an inverse relationship (@pythinker's answer), but for models worse than random, they have a direct relationship (@kbrose's example).
It is worth noting that we can artificially build a sample that causes a model which is better-than-random on true distribution to perform worse-than-random, so we are assuming that the sample resembles the true distribution.
Recall
We have
$$TP = P - FN$$
therefore, recall would be
$$r = fracP-FNP = 1- fracFNP$$
which always increases by decrease in $FN$.
Precision
For precision, the relation is not as straightforward. Lets start with two examples.
First case: decrease in precision, by decrease in false negative:
label model prediction
1 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.2
1 0.2
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.2)$),
$$p = frac11+0=1$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac22+2=0.5$$
Second case: increase in precision, by decrease in false negative (the same as @kbrose example):
label model prediction
0 1.0
1 0.4
0 0.1
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.4)$),
$$p = frac00+1=0$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac11+2=0.33$$
It is worth noting that ROC curve for this case is
Analysis of precision based on ROC curve
When we lower the threshold, false negative decreases, and true positive [rate] increases, which is equivalent to moving to the right in ROC plot. I did a simulation for better-than-random, random, and worse-than-random models, and plotted ROC, recall, and precision:
As you can see, by moving to the right, for better-than-random model, precision decreases, for random model, precision has substantial fluctuations, and for worse-than-random model precision increases. And there are slight fluctuations in all three cases. Therefore,
By increase in recall, if model is better than random, precision generally decreases. If mode is worse than random, precision generally increases.
Here is the code for simulation:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
from matplotlib import pyplot
np.random.seed(123)
count = 2000
P = int(count * 0.5)
N = count - P
# first half zero, second half one
y_true = np.concatenate((np.zeros((N, 1)), np.ones((P, 1))))
title = 'Better-than-random model'
# title = 'Random model'
# title = 'Worse-than-random model'
if title == 'Better-than-random model':
# GOOD: model output increases from 0 to 1 with noise
y_score = np.array([p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Random model':
# RANDOM: model output is purely random
y_score = np.array([np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Worse-than-random model':
# SUB RANDOM: model output decreases from 0 to -1 (worse than random)
y_score = np.array([-p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/1000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
# calculate ROC (fpr, tpr) points
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_true, y_score)
# calculate recall, precision, and accuracy for corresponding thresholds
# recall = TP / P
recall = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/P
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# precision = TP / (TP + FP)
precision = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/np.count_nonzero(y_score > t)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# accuracy = (TP + TN) / (P + N)
accuracy = np.array([(np.sum(y_true[y_score > t]) + np.sum(1 - y_true[y_score < t]))
/len(y_score)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# Sort performance measures from min tpr to max tpr
index = np.argsort(tpr)
tpr_sorted = tpr[index]
recall_sorted = recall[index]
precision_sorted = precision[index]
accuracy_sorted = accuracy[index]
# visualize
fig, ax = pyplot.subplots(3, 1)
fig.suptitle(title, fontsize=12)
line = np.arange(0, len(thresholds))/len(thresholds)
ax[0].plot(fpr, tpr, label='ROC', color='purple')
ax[0].plot(line, line, '--', label='random', color='black')
ax[0].set_xlabel('fpr')
ax[0].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[1].plot(line, recall, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(line, precision, label='precision', color='red')
ax[1].plot(line, accuracy, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[1].set_xlabel('1 - threshold')
ax[1].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, recall_sorted, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, precision_sorted, label='precision', color='red')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, accuracy_sorted, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[2].set_xlabel('tpr (1 - fnr)')
ax[2].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
fig.tight_layout()
fig.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
pyplot.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Thanks for clear statement of the problem. The point is that if you want to decrease false negatives, you should sufficiently lower the threshold of your decision function. If the false negatives are decreased, as you mentioned, true positives increase but false positives can also increase. As a result, recall will increase and precision will decrease.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct @Tolga, both can increase at the same time. Consider the following data:
Prediction | True Class
1.0 | 0
0.5 | 1
0.0 | 0
If you set your cut off point as 0.75, then you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac00 + 1 = 0 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac00 + 1 = 0$$
then if you decrease your cut off point to 0.25, you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac11 + 1 = 0.5 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac11 + 0 = 1$$
and so you can see, both precision and recall increased when we decreased the number of False Negatives.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "557"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Tolga Karahan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49117%2finverse-relationship-between-precision-and-recall%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If we decrease the false negative (select more positives), recall always increases, but precision may increase or decrease. Generally, for models better than random, precision and recall have an inverse relationship (@pythinker's answer), but for models worse than random, they have a direct relationship (@kbrose's example).
It is worth noting that we can artificially build a sample that causes a model which is better-than-random on true distribution to perform worse-than-random, so we are assuming that the sample resembles the true distribution.
Recall
We have
$$TP = P - FN$$
therefore, recall would be
$$r = fracP-FNP = 1- fracFNP$$
which always increases by decrease in $FN$.
Precision
For precision, the relation is not as straightforward. Lets start with two examples.
First case: decrease in precision, by decrease in false negative:
label model prediction
1 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.2
1 0.2
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.2)$),
$$p = frac11+0=1$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac22+2=0.5$$
Second case: increase in precision, by decrease in false negative (the same as @kbrose example):
label model prediction
0 1.0
1 0.4
0 0.1
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.4)$),
$$p = frac00+1=0$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac11+2=0.33$$
It is worth noting that ROC curve for this case is
Analysis of precision based on ROC curve
When we lower the threshold, false negative decreases, and true positive [rate] increases, which is equivalent to moving to the right in ROC plot. I did a simulation for better-than-random, random, and worse-than-random models, and plotted ROC, recall, and precision:
As you can see, by moving to the right, for better-than-random model, precision decreases, for random model, precision has substantial fluctuations, and for worse-than-random model precision increases. And there are slight fluctuations in all three cases. Therefore,
By increase in recall, if model is better than random, precision generally decreases. If mode is worse than random, precision generally increases.
Here is the code for simulation:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
from matplotlib import pyplot
np.random.seed(123)
count = 2000
P = int(count * 0.5)
N = count - P
# first half zero, second half one
y_true = np.concatenate((np.zeros((N, 1)), np.ones((P, 1))))
title = 'Better-than-random model'
# title = 'Random model'
# title = 'Worse-than-random model'
if title == 'Better-than-random model':
# GOOD: model output increases from 0 to 1 with noise
y_score = np.array([p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Random model':
# RANDOM: model output is purely random
y_score = np.array([np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Worse-than-random model':
# SUB RANDOM: model output decreases from 0 to -1 (worse than random)
y_score = np.array([-p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/1000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
# calculate ROC (fpr, tpr) points
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_true, y_score)
# calculate recall, precision, and accuracy for corresponding thresholds
# recall = TP / P
recall = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/P
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# precision = TP / (TP + FP)
precision = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/np.count_nonzero(y_score > t)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# accuracy = (TP + TN) / (P + N)
accuracy = np.array([(np.sum(y_true[y_score > t]) + np.sum(1 - y_true[y_score < t]))
/len(y_score)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# Sort performance measures from min tpr to max tpr
index = np.argsort(tpr)
tpr_sorted = tpr[index]
recall_sorted = recall[index]
precision_sorted = precision[index]
accuracy_sorted = accuracy[index]
# visualize
fig, ax = pyplot.subplots(3, 1)
fig.suptitle(title, fontsize=12)
line = np.arange(0, len(thresholds))/len(thresholds)
ax[0].plot(fpr, tpr, label='ROC', color='purple')
ax[0].plot(line, line, '--', label='random', color='black')
ax[0].set_xlabel('fpr')
ax[0].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[1].plot(line, recall, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(line, precision, label='precision', color='red')
ax[1].plot(line, accuracy, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[1].set_xlabel('1 - threshold')
ax[1].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, recall_sorted, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, precision_sorted, label='precision', color='red')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, accuracy_sorted, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[2].set_xlabel('tpr (1 - fnr)')
ax[2].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
fig.tight_layout()
fig.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
pyplot.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
If we decrease the false negative (select more positives), recall always increases, but precision may increase or decrease. Generally, for models better than random, precision and recall have an inverse relationship (@pythinker's answer), but for models worse than random, they have a direct relationship (@kbrose's example).
It is worth noting that we can artificially build a sample that causes a model which is better-than-random on true distribution to perform worse-than-random, so we are assuming that the sample resembles the true distribution.
Recall
We have
$$TP = P - FN$$
therefore, recall would be
$$r = fracP-FNP = 1- fracFNP$$
which always increases by decrease in $FN$.
Precision
For precision, the relation is not as straightforward. Lets start with two examples.
First case: decrease in precision, by decrease in false negative:
label model prediction
1 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.2
1 0.2
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.2)$),
$$p = frac11+0=1$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac22+2=0.5$$
Second case: increase in precision, by decrease in false negative (the same as @kbrose example):
label model prediction
0 1.0
1 0.4
0 0.1
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.4)$),
$$p = frac00+1=0$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac11+2=0.33$$
It is worth noting that ROC curve for this case is
Analysis of precision based on ROC curve
When we lower the threshold, false negative decreases, and true positive [rate] increases, which is equivalent to moving to the right in ROC plot. I did a simulation for better-than-random, random, and worse-than-random models, and plotted ROC, recall, and precision:
As you can see, by moving to the right, for better-than-random model, precision decreases, for random model, precision has substantial fluctuations, and for worse-than-random model precision increases. And there are slight fluctuations in all three cases. Therefore,
By increase in recall, if model is better than random, precision generally decreases. If mode is worse than random, precision generally increases.
Here is the code for simulation:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
from matplotlib import pyplot
np.random.seed(123)
count = 2000
P = int(count * 0.5)
N = count - P
# first half zero, second half one
y_true = np.concatenate((np.zeros((N, 1)), np.ones((P, 1))))
title = 'Better-than-random model'
# title = 'Random model'
# title = 'Worse-than-random model'
if title == 'Better-than-random model':
# GOOD: model output increases from 0 to 1 with noise
y_score = np.array([p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Random model':
# RANDOM: model output is purely random
y_score = np.array([np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Worse-than-random model':
# SUB RANDOM: model output decreases from 0 to -1 (worse than random)
y_score = np.array([-p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/1000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
# calculate ROC (fpr, tpr) points
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_true, y_score)
# calculate recall, precision, and accuracy for corresponding thresholds
# recall = TP / P
recall = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/P
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# precision = TP / (TP + FP)
precision = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/np.count_nonzero(y_score > t)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# accuracy = (TP + TN) / (P + N)
accuracy = np.array([(np.sum(y_true[y_score > t]) + np.sum(1 - y_true[y_score < t]))
/len(y_score)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# Sort performance measures from min tpr to max tpr
index = np.argsort(tpr)
tpr_sorted = tpr[index]
recall_sorted = recall[index]
precision_sorted = precision[index]
accuracy_sorted = accuracy[index]
# visualize
fig, ax = pyplot.subplots(3, 1)
fig.suptitle(title, fontsize=12)
line = np.arange(0, len(thresholds))/len(thresholds)
ax[0].plot(fpr, tpr, label='ROC', color='purple')
ax[0].plot(line, line, '--', label='random', color='black')
ax[0].set_xlabel('fpr')
ax[0].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[1].plot(line, recall, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(line, precision, label='precision', color='red')
ax[1].plot(line, accuracy, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[1].set_xlabel('1 - threshold')
ax[1].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, recall_sorted, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, precision_sorted, label='precision', color='red')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, accuracy_sorted, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[2].set_xlabel('tpr (1 - fnr)')
ax[2].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
fig.tight_layout()
fig.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
pyplot.show()
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
If we decrease the false negative (select more positives), recall always increases, but precision may increase or decrease. Generally, for models better than random, precision and recall have an inverse relationship (@pythinker's answer), but for models worse than random, they have a direct relationship (@kbrose's example).
It is worth noting that we can artificially build a sample that causes a model which is better-than-random on true distribution to perform worse-than-random, so we are assuming that the sample resembles the true distribution.
Recall
We have
$$TP = P - FN$$
therefore, recall would be
$$r = fracP-FNP = 1- fracFNP$$
which always increases by decrease in $FN$.
Precision
For precision, the relation is not as straightforward. Lets start with two examples.
First case: decrease in precision, by decrease in false negative:
label model prediction
1 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.2
1 0.2
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.2)$),
$$p = frac11+0=1$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac22+2=0.5$$
Second case: increase in precision, by decrease in false negative (the same as @kbrose example):
label model prediction
0 1.0
1 0.4
0 0.1
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.4)$),
$$p = frac00+1=0$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac11+2=0.33$$
It is worth noting that ROC curve for this case is
Analysis of precision based on ROC curve
When we lower the threshold, false negative decreases, and true positive [rate] increases, which is equivalent to moving to the right in ROC plot. I did a simulation for better-than-random, random, and worse-than-random models, and plotted ROC, recall, and precision:
As you can see, by moving to the right, for better-than-random model, precision decreases, for random model, precision has substantial fluctuations, and for worse-than-random model precision increases. And there are slight fluctuations in all three cases. Therefore,
By increase in recall, if model is better than random, precision generally decreases. If mode is worse than random, precision generally increases.
Here is the code for simulation:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
from matplotlib import pyplot
np.random.seed(123)
count = 2000
P = int(count * 0.5)
N = count - P
# first half zero, second half one
y_true = np.concatenate((np.zeros((N, 1)), np.ones((P, 1))))
title = 'Better-than-random model'
# title = 'Random model'
# title = 'Worse-than-random model'
if title == 'Better-than-random model':
# GOOD: model output increases from 0 to 1 with noise
y_score = np.array([p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Random model':
# RANDOM: model output is purely random
y_score = np.array([np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Worse-than-random model':
# SUB RANDOM: model output decreases from 0 to -1 (worse than random)
y_score = np.array([-p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/1000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
# calculate ROC (fpr, tpr) points
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_true, y_score)
# calculate recall, precision, and accuracy for corresponding thresholds
# recall = TP / P
recall = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/P
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# precision = TP / (TP + FP)
precision = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/np.count_nonzero(y_score > t)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# accuracy = (TP + TN) / (P + N)
accuracy = np.array([(np.sum(y_true[y_score > t]) + np.sum(1 - y_true[y_score < t]))
/len(y_score)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# Sort performance measures from min tpr to max tpr
index = np.argsort(tpr)
tpr_sorted = tpr[index]
recall_sorted = recall[index]
precision_sorted = precision[index]
accuracy_sorted = accuracy[index]
# visualize
fig, ax = pyplot.subplots(3, 1)
fig.suptitle(title, fontsize=12)
line = np.arange(0, len(thresholds))/len(thresholds)
ax[0].plot(fpr, tpr, label='ROC', color='purple')
ax[0].plot(line, line, '--', label='random', color='black')
ax[0].set_xlabel('fpr')
ax[0].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[1].plot(line, recall, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(line, precision, label='precision', color='red')
ax[1].plot(line, accuracy, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[1].set_xlabel('1 - threshold')
ax[1].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, recall_sorted, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, precision_sorted, label='precision', color='red')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, accuracy_sorted, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[2].set_xlabel('tpr (1 - fnr)')
ax[2].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
fig.tight_layout()
fig.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
pyplot.show()
$endgroup$
If we decrease the false negative (select more positives), recall always increases, but precision may increase or decrease. Generally, for models better than random, precision and recall have an inverse relationship (@pythinker's answer), but for models worse than random, they have a direct relationship (@kbrose's example).
It is worth noting that we can artificially build a sample that causes a model which is better-than-random on true distribution to perform worse-than-random, so we are assuming that the sample resembles the true distribution.
Recall
We have
$$TP = P - FN$$
therefore, recall would be
$$r = fracP-FNP = 1- fracFNP$$
which always increases by decrease in $FN$.
Precision
For precision, the relation is not as straightforward. Lets start with two examples.
First case: decrease in precision, by decrease in false negative:
label model prediction
1 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.2
1 0.2
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.2)$),
$$p = frac11+0=1$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac22+2=0.5$$
Second case: increase in precision, by decrease in false negative (the same as @kbrose example):
label model prediction
0 1.0
1 0.4
0 0.1
For threshold $0.5$ (false negative = $(1, 0.4)$),
$$p = frac00+1=0$$
For threshold $0.0$ (false negative = $$),
$$p = frac11+2=0.33$$
It is worth noting that ROC curve for this case is
Analysis of precision based on ROC curve
When we lower the threshold, false negative decreases, and true positive [rate] increases, which is equivalent to moving to the right in ROC plot. I did a simulation for better-than-random, random, and worse-than-random models, and plotted ROC, recall, and precision:
As you can see, by moving to the right, for better-than-random model, precision decreases, for random model, precision has substantial fluctuations, and for worse-than-random model precision increases. And there are slight fluctuations in all three cases. Therefore,
By increase in recall, if model is better than random, precision generally decreases. If mode is worse than random, precision generally increases.
Here is the code for simulation:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics import roc_curve
from matplotlib import pyplot
np.random.seed(123)
count = 2000
P = int(count * 0.5)
N = count - P
# first half zero, second half one
y_true = np.concatenate((np.zeros((N, 1)), np.ones((P, 1))))
title = 'Better-than-random model'
# title = 'Random model'
# title = 'Worse-than-random model'
if title == 'Better-than-random model':
# GOOD: model output increases from 0 to 1 with noise
y_score = np.array([p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Random model':
# RANDOM: model output is purely random
y_score = np.array([np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/3000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
elif title == 'Worse-than-random model':
# SUB RANDOM: model output decreases from 0 to -1 (worse than random)
y_score = np.array([-p + np.random.randint(-1000, 1000)/1000
for p in np.arange(0, 1, 1.0 / count)]).reshape((-1, 1))
# calculate ROC (fpr, tpr) points
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_true, y_score)
# calculate recall, precision, and accuracy for corresponding thresholds
# recall = TP / P
recall = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/P
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# precision = TP / (TP + FP)
precision = np.array([np.sum(y_true[y_score > t])/np.count_nonzero(y_score > t)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# accuracy = (TP + TN) / (P + N)
accuracy = np.array([(np.sum(y_true[y_score > t]) + np.sum(1 - y_true[y_score < t]))
/len(y_score)
for t in thresholds]).reshape((-1, 1))
# Sort performance measures from min tpr to max tpr
index = np.argsort(tpr)
tpr_sorted = tpr[index]
recall_sorted = recall[index]
precision_sorted = precision[index]
accuracy_sorted = accuracy[index]
# visualize
fig, ax = pyplot.subplots(3, 1)
fig.suptitle(title, fontsize=12)
line = np.arange(0, len(thresholds))/len(thresholds)
ax[0].plot(fpr, tpr, label='ROC', color='purple')
ax[0].plot(line, line, '--', label='random', color='black')
ax[0].set_xlabel('fpr')
ax[0].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[1].plot(line, recall, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(line, precision, label='precision', color='red')
ax[1].plot(line, accuracy, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[1].set_xlabel('1 - threshold')
ax[1].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, recall_sorted, label='recall', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, precision_sorted, label='precision', color='red')
ax[2].plot(tpr_sorted, accuracy_sorted, label='accuracy', color='black')
ax[2].set_xlabel('tpr (1 - fnr)')
ax[2].legend(loc='center left', bbox_to_anchor=(1, 0.5))
fig.tight_layout()
fig.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
pyplot.show()
edited Apr 12 at 12:12
answered Apr 11 at 17:53
EsmailianEsmailian
3,311420
3,311420
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
So when random phenomena completely rules, in practice it is observed that they generally have inverse relationship. There are different situations but, can we say generally if we increase precision it means that we predict negative examples more accurately and if we increase recall it means that we predict positive examples more accurately?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 8:13
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan First we need to define "more accurately" in terms of TN, TP, etc. For example "accuracy" is for both positives and negatives, i.e. (TP+TN / P+N) which I added it to the plots, it has a rise and a fall for better-than-random models.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:15
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
I mean ratio of correctly predicted labels to all labels for a specific class. Like TP / P or TN / N. If I increase precision does it predict negative examples more accurately with increasing TN / N?
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahan Aha. For better-than-random models, increase in precision means decrease in recall (and vice versa), which is decrease in TP/P (P = TP+FN). For TN/N, we know when threshold is increased (decrease in recall) both TP and FP decrease since we are selecting less positives, thus FP/N decreases, and 1 - FP/N = TN/N increases. So the answer to your question is yes.
$endgroup$
– Esmailian
Apr 12 at 11:59
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
$begingroup$
It's good. Finally If I define TP / P as positive recall and TN / N as negative recall then I suppose with increasing precision I increase negative recall and with increasing recall because it is same thing I also increase positive recall. So it looks like matter of increasing negative or positive recall and which one more important to me.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 12 at 12:09
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Thanks for clear statement of the problem. The point is that if you want to decrease false negatives, you should sufficiently lower the threshold of your decision function. If the false negatives are decreased, as you mentioned, true positives increase but false positives can also increase. As a result, recall will increase and precision will decrease.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for clear statement of the problem. The point is that if you want to decrease false negatives, you should sufficiently lower the threshold of your decision function. If the false negatives are decreased, as you mentioned, true positives increase but false positives can also increase. As a result, recall will increase and precision will decrease.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for clear statement of the problem. The point is that if you want to decrease false negatives, you should sufficiently lower the threshold of your decision function. If the false negatives are decreased, as you mentioned, true positives increase but false positives can also increase. As a result, recall will increase and precision will decrease.
$endgroup$
Thanks for clear statement of the problem. The point is that if you want to decrease false negatives, you should sufficiently lower the threshold of your decision function. If the false negatives are decreased, as you mentioned, true positives increase but false positives can also increase. As a result, recall will increase and precision will decrease.
edited Apr 11 at 19:50
Pedro Henrique Monforte
486114
486114
answered Apr 11 at 12:31
pythinkerpythinker
8291213
8291213
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
1
1
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
I've just learned this topic and It seems I focused equations to much with neglecting effects of changing model. This explanation helped to clarify things. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 13:09
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@TolgaKarahanYou're welcome. I am very pleased my answer helped.
$endgroup$
– pythinker
Apr 11 at 13:39
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 14:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct @Tolga, both can increase at the same time. Consider the following data:
Prediction | True Class
1.0 | 0
0.5 | 1
0.0 | 0
If you set your cut off point as 0.75, then you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac00 + 1 = 0 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac00 + 1 = 0$$
then if you decrease your cut off point to 0.25, you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac11 + 1 = 0.5 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac11 + 0 = 1$$
and so you can see, both precision and recall increased when we decreased the number of False Negatives.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct @Tolga, both can increase at the same time. Consider the following data:
Prediction | True Class
1.0 | 0
0.5 | 1
0.0 | 0
If you set your cut off point as 0.75, then you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac00 + 1 = 0 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac00 + 1 = 0$$
then if you decrease your cut off point to 0.25, you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac11 + 1 = 0.5 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac11 + 0 = 1$$
and so you can see, both precision and recall increased when we decreased the number of False Negatives.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct @Tolga, both can increase at the same time. Consider the following data:
Prediction | True Class
1.0 | 0
0.5 | 1
0.0 | 0
If you set your cut off point as 0.75, then you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac00 + 1 = 0 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac00 + 1 = 0$$
then if you decrease your cut off point to 0.25, you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac11 + 1 = 0.5 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac11 + 0 = 1$$
and so you can see, both precision and recall increased when we decreased the number of False Negatives.
$endgroup$
You are correct @Tolga, both can increase at the same time. Consider the following data:
Prediction | True Class
1.0 | 0
0.5 | 1
0.0 | 0
If you set your cut off point as 0.75, then you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac00 + 1 = 0 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac00 + 1 = 0$$
then if you decrease your cut off point to 0.25, you have
$$ Precision = fracTPTP + FP = frac11 + 1 = 0.5 $$
$$ Recall = fracTPTP + FN = frac11 + 0 = 1$$
and so you can see, both precision and recall increased when we decreased the number of False Negatives.
answered Apr 11 at 14:21
kbrosekbrose
1,063313
1,063313
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Thank you. It seems distribution of data is so important and it isn't surprising of course.
$endgroup$
– Tolga Karahan
Apr 11 at 14:49
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
But you still need to be realistic. It is unlikely you can decrease the number of False Negatives without increasing the number of False Positives.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Henrique Monforte
Apr 11 at 19:51
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
$begingroup$
You provide no data and no argument to back up your claim. I provide an example showing exactly why the OP's statement is correct. And I'm the one that needs to be realistic. Really?
$endgroup$
– kbrose
Apr 11 at 23:50
add a comment |
Tolga Karahan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tolga Karahan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tolga Karahan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tolga Karahan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Data Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdatascience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49117%2finverse-relationship-between-precision-and-recall%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown