I am working on binary classification problem, I try to evaluate the performance of some classification algorithms (LR,Decission Tree , Random forest ...). I am using a cross validation technique (to avoid over-fitting) with AUC ROC as scoring function to compare the performance of the algorithms, but I am getting a weird results with Random forest and AdbBoost, I have a perfect AUC_ROC score (i.e. =1) despite the fact that the recall(TPR) and FPR of this algorithms are different from 1 and 0 respectively .

enter image description here

def FPR(y_true, y_pred):
    tn, fp, fn, tp = confusion_matrix(y_true, y_pred).ravel()
    result = fp / (fp+tn)
    return result
def FNR(y_true, y_pred):
    tn, fp, fn, tp = confusion_matrix(y_true, y_pred).ravel()
    result = fn / (tp+fn)
    return result
FPR_scorer = make_scorer(FPR)
FNR_scorer = make_scorer(FNR)   

def get_CrossValResults2(model,cv_rst,bestIndx):
    acc ="{:.0%}".format(best['mean_test_accuracy'])
    prec ="{:.0%}".format(best['mean_test_precision'])
    rec ="{:.0%}".format( best['mean_test_recall'])
    f1 ="{:.0%}".format(best['mean_test_f1'])
    rst = pd.DataFrame([[ model, acc,prec,rec,fpr,fnr,f1,roc,pr_auc,g_mean,r2]],columns = ['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall','FPR','FNR', 'F1-Score','ROC_auc','PR_auc','gmean','r2'])
    return rst
cross_val_rst = pd.DataFrame(columns = ['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall','FPR','FNR', 'F1-Score','ROC_auc','PR_auc','gmean','r2'])    
scoring = {'accuracy':'accuracy','recall':'recall','precision':'precision','fpr':FPR_scorer,'fnr':FNR_scorer,'f1':'f1' ,'roc_auc':'roc_auc','pr':'average_precision','gmean':Gmean_scorer,'r2':'r2'}    
param_grid = {'n_estimators': [200], 
             'max_depth': [80,90],
              'min_samples_leaf': [2,3, 4],
            'min_samples_split': [2,5,12],
            'criterion': [ 'gini'],
             'class_weight' : [class_weights], 'n_jobs' : [-1]} 
clf = GridSearchCV(RandomForestClassifier(class_weight=class_weights), param_grid, cv=kfold,scoring=scoring,refit=refit)#Fit the model
bestmodel = clf.fit(X,Y)
cross_val_rst = cross_val_rst.append(get_CrossValResults2(model='Random Forrest',bestIndx=bestmodel.best_index_,cv_rst=bestmodel.cv_results_),ignore_index=True)
  • $\begingroup$ With only two decimals, it may just be rounding. Can you recover the actual value of ROC_auc? $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ cross-posted: stats.stackexchange.com/q/478046/232706 $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ The graphs you linked to in the comments to the answers are not very helpful. What about the actual ROC plots? What is the unrounded value of ROC_auc? $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 21, 2020 at 17:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ the values equals to 1.00000 imgur.com/6PmlMJ8 $\endgroup$
    – Ak.tech
    Commented Jul 21, 2020 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ It seems likely that something is wrong then... the ROC curve for RF is missing at least the .04 by .03 rectangle in the upper-left, so AUC should be at most 1-0.04*0.03=0.9988. Could you provide your code? $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 21, 2020 at 23:37

2 Answers 2


Oh, I think I've finally got it. It's just an averaging problem: for each fold in your k-fold cross-validation, you get perfect auROC, but at the default threshold of 0.5 your hard classifiers (for each fold) sometimes have $FPR=0$ and $TPR<1$, but some other times $FPR>0$ and $TPR=1$. Then averaging you are able to get both $\operatorname{mean}(FPR)>0$ and $\operatorname{mean}(TPR)<1$.

To check, have a look at the cv_results_ table, particularly at each test fold scores (split<i>_test_<xyz>), rather than just the mean_test_<xyz> scores.


I think recall and FPR are calculated in scikit-learn using a threshold of 0.5. On the other hand ROC AUC is transparent to model threshold. I encourage you to explore thresholder in scikit-lego to inspect in this direction.

An example of AUC = 1 but bad FPR would be if you use 0.5 as a threshold, you model splits your samples perfectly but the positive ones have scores between 0.2 and 0.4 and your negative ones have scores between 0 and 0.2.

  • $\begingroup$ That example just lands you in the corner of the ROC box though... $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ yes, I know, but what's the issue with the argument? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ You're right that AUC=1 and "bad" FPR is possible, and the example works to that end, but the resulting point in ROC space isn't "bad"; the two corners will always be hit. (Actually, I think your example gives TPR=0, not FPR>0, but whatever. You could also construct an example with e.g. FPR=0 and TPR=0.5, etc.) To have AUC=1, you need every threshold to give a point in ROC space with either FPR=0 or TPR=1. You can't get both FPR>0 and TPR<1 and get perfect auROC as in OP, I think. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Reiniger
    Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I need to write it down haha, thanks for your comment. I don't understand what you mean by bad point in ROC space, though. I just wanted to illustrate that you can have a good ROC curve but bad positive rate and negative metrics if a bad threshold is chosen $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ FPR and TPR values per thersholds RandomF =imgur.com/NsR2HEy AdaBoost=imgur.com/uD77mHj $\endgroup$
    – Ak.tech
    Commented Jul 20, 2020 at 16:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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