Bayes-Optimal BER and AUC: Estimation and Evaluation of Estimators
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A fundamental quantity in machine learning is the optimal performance achievable by any model on a given task. Estimating this quantity allows us to distinguish the irreducible part of the error from a deficiency of the model, telling us how much room for improvement remains. Recent work has shown that the Bayes error, or equivalently the optimal accuracy, can be estimated from soft labels in binary classification. However, accuracy is often a poor summary of performance in settings with severe class imbalance or noisy annotations, where metrics such as the balanced error rate (BER) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) are more appropriate. We address this gap with two complementary contributions. (i) Estimation. We propose soft-label-based estimators for the optimal BER and AUC. We first consider the clean setting in which true soft labels and the class prior are known, and then extend the estimators to a more realistic setting in which the class prior is unknown and the observed soft labels are corrupted by an unknown order-preserving transformation, possibly followed by additive noise. In the latter setting, we approximately recover the clean soft labels via isotonic regression with auxiliary hard labels, estimate the class prior with a clipped mean of the hard labels, and derive finite-sample error bounds for the resulting plug-in estimators. (ii) Evaluation. Since the optimum is unobservable on real datasets, evaluating any such estimator is itself nontrivial. We extend the FeeBee framework, originally proposed for evaluating Bayes-error estimators, to the optimal BER and AUC. The resulting procedure provides practical evaluation scores without requiring knowledge of the optimum, and applies to any estimator of the optimal BER or AUC, not only our proposed ones. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate both the estimators and the evaluation procedure.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.
Builds on
16 of 43 references.
References · 16
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
- 2022Estimating the Carbon Footprint of BLOOM, a 176B Parameter Language Modelcited by 265
- 2019Human uncertainty makes classification more robustcited by 235
- 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
- 2019On Symmetric Losses for Learning from Corrupted Labelscited by 53
- 2021Distributed NLI: Learning to Predict Human Opinion Distributions for Language Reasoningcited by 31
- 2022Is the Performance of My Deep Network Too Good to Be True? A Direct Approach to Estimating the Bayes Error in Binary Classificationcited by 26
- 2015Optimizing Non-decomposable Performance Measures: A Tale of Two Classescited by 18
- 2015Scaling-up Empirical Risk Minimization: Optimization of Incomplete U-statisticscited by 17
- 2021Evaluating State-of-the-Art Classification Models Against Bayes Optimalitycited by 16
- 2019Learning to Benchmark: Determining Best Achievable Misclassification Error from Training Datacited by 11
- 2021Evaluating Bayes Error Estimators on Real-World Datasets with FeeBeecited by 8
4 more
- 2025CapBencher: Give Your LLM Benchmark a Built-in Alarm for Test-Set Overfittingcited by 7
- 2025Practical estimation of the optimal classification error with soft labels and calibrationcited by 6
- 2015Optimal Decision-Theoretic Classification Using Non-Decomposable Performance Metricscited by 4
- 2024Data-Driven Estimation of the False Positive Rate of the Bayes Binary Classifier via Soft Labelscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.