I am working on the following "equality identification" problem and become quite confused on how to reasonably define false positive and false negative in my case.


Suppose I have a large set of graphs $G$, where for every graph $g \in G$, there is one and only one graph $g'$ that is identical to $g$. I am training a model $M$ which, given two graphs $g, g' \in G$, can decide how similar these two graphs are. The output of $M$, $o =M(g, g')$, denotes a similarity score of these two graphs. $o$ is a floating number, ranging from $[0, 1]$.

To evaluate the performance of $M$, I am measuring the top-$k$ accuracy of its predications in the following very standard way:

for g \in G:
    for t \in G:  // suppose here t != g and therefore comparison is meaningful
        accuracy[(g, t)] = M(g, t)

correct_prediction = 0
total_prediction = 0
for g \in G:
     total_prediction += 1
     sort_accuracy_array_on_graph (g); // we sort all comparisons on $g$ with other graphs \in G
     if g' in top-$k$ most similarity graphs with g: 
        // g' is the ground truth, the "identical" graph with g
        correct_prediction += 1

correct_prediction / total_prediction // the average top-$k$ accuracy

OK, so this seems very standard approach to computing the top-$k$ accuracy of $M$. However, currently I want to take one step further and somewhat measure the false positive and false negative of $M$. I understand that FP and FN are both very standard metrics in data mining, but just somewhat become very confused on how to define it in my problem. For instance, I can define False Negative in the following way:

  • False Negative of $M$: conceptually, FN denotes that $g'$, the identical graph of $g$, does not appear in top-$k$ most similarity graph of $g$. Then, perhaps FN is interchangeable with top-$k$ accuracy in my case?

  • False Positive of $M$: but if we accept that FN is interchangeable with top-$k$ accuracy in my case, then how to define FP of $M$? FP denotes that $M$ aggressively treats graph $t$, where $t != g'$, as the "similar" graph of $g$ and appear in its top-$k$ most similar set. Then isn't it indicating that FP is ALSO interchangeable with top-$k$ accuracy in my case? That seems suspicious because in my understanding, FP should not equal to FN? There must be something wrong.

Am I clear on this confusion? Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you!


I think your confusion comes from the fact that the false negative of $M$ as you thought it, is not top-$k$ accuracy but perhaps $1$ $-$ top-$k$. Moreover, how do you evaluate the condition if g' in top-$k$ most similarity graphs with g?

In any case, for your case I thought the following.

Let's say that if the model $M$ returns a value $o > o^*$, where $o, o^* \in [0, 1]$ (and $o^*$ is a threshold value decided by a human), then we assume that $g \equiv g'$; $g \neq g'$ otherwise.

Thus, a false negative of $M$ is when $o < o^*$ but in reality, $g \equiv g'$.

A false positive of $M$ instead is when $o > o^*$ but in reality, $g \neq g'$.

Of course your result will depend on what value(s) of $o^*$ you choose, but now it should be more clear what are FN and FP.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the reply. Yes, deciding a threshold $T$ makes a lot of sense to me. $\endgroup$ – lllllllllllll Jul 2 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Let me think more before accepting your answer. Thank you :) $\endgroup$ – lllllllllllll Jul 2 at 16:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.