You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither SPIE nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the SPIE website.
12 March 2009Comparison of classifier performance estimators: a simulation study
We aim to compare resampling-based estimators of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of a classifier with a Monte Carlo simulation study. The comparison is in terms of bias, variance, and mean square error. We also examine the corresponding variance estimators of these AUC estimators. We compared three AUC estimators: the hold-out (HO) estimator, the leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) estimator, and the leave-pair-out bootstrap (LPOB) estimator. Each performance estimator has its own variability estimator. In our simulations, in terms of the mean square error, HO is always the worst and the ranking of the other two estimators depends on the interplay of sample size, dimensionality, and the population separability. In terms of estimator variability, the LPOB is the least variable estimator and the HO is the most variable estimator. The results also show that the estimation of the variance of LPOB using the influence function approach with a finite data set is unbiased or conservatively biased whereas the estimation of the variance of the LOOCV or the HO is downwardly (i.e., anti-conservatively) biased.
The alert did not successfully save. Please try again later.
Weijie Chen, Robert F. Wagner, Waleed A. Yousef, Brandon D. Gallas, "Comparison of classifier performance estimators: a simulation study," Proc. SPIE 7263, Medical Imaging 2009: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 72630X (12 March 2009); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.811584