Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Bernhard Wernly

dblp:281/3412 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Learning theory · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification
ROC analysis
0.712023
Deep ROC Analysis and AUC as Balanced Average Accuracy, for Improved Classifier Selection, Audit and Explanation · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › model selection
classifier selection
0.212023
Deep ROC Analysis and AUC as Balanced Average Accuracy, for Improved Classifier Selection, Audit and Explanation · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

balanced average accuracy · 0.7AUC · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Deep ROC Analysis and AUC as Balanced Average Accuracy, for Improved Classifier Selection, Audit and Explanation
abstract
Optimal performance is desired for decision-making in any field with binary classifiers and diagnostic tests, however common performance measures lack depth in information. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the area under the precision recall curve are too general because they evaluate all decision thresholds including unrealistic ones. Conversely, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and the F1 score are too specific-they are measured at a single threshold that is optimal for some instances, but not others, which is not equitable. In between both approaches, we propose deep ROC analysis to measure performance in multiple groups of predicted risk (like calibration), or groups of true positive rate or false positive rate. In each group, we measure the group AUC (properly), normalized group AUC, and averages of: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio positive and negative. The measurements can be compared between groups, to whole measures, to point measures and between models. We also provide a new interpretation of AUC in whole or part, as balanced average accuracy, relevant to individuals instead of pairs. We evaluate models in three case studies using our method and Python toolkit and confirm its utility.
André M. Carrington, Douglas G. Manuel, Paul W. Fieguth, Tim Ramsay, Venet Osmani, Bernhard Wernly, Carol Bennett, Steven Hawken, Olivia Magwood, Yusuf Sheikh, Matthew McInnes, Andreas Holzinger
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.6