EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Olivia Magwood
dblp:288/1486
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification
ROC analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | 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 |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Deep ROC Analysis and AUC as Balanced Average Accuracy, for Improved Classifier Selection, Audit and ExplanationabstractOptimal 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. | 9 |