While binary classification is one of the most extensively studied problems in machine learning, the regime in which the goal is to learn a classifier with an almost zero false negative rate remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we introduce the Extreme Binary Classification problem, where the objective is to learn a classifier whose false negative rate α is constrained by εN1=oN1→∞(1/N1), with N1 denoting the number of positive examples in the training set. To address this problem, we propose a threshold adaptation method theoretically grounded in guarantees derived from Extreme Value Theory, together with a feature selection procedure based on a permutation test applied to sample maxima. Experimental results on four real-world datasets of varying sizes demonstrate that our approach compares favorably with state-of-the-art methods. In addition, we illustrate its interpretability through an application to a cancer screening dataset.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the progression from a standard classifier (left) to a cost-sensitive classifier (middle) and finally to our extreme classifier (right). As the cost of false negatives increases, the decision threshold is shifted to favor sensitivity. Our extreme classifier further adjusts the threshold to provide strong control over false negatives while mitigating overfitting.
Rank
ScreenX
Corruption
Credit
Mean Rank
1
Mul-Q=0.95 (Ours)
MulLog-Q=0.9 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.1
MulLog-Q=0.9 (Ours)
2
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.9
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
3
Conservative Ensemble
MulLog-Q=0.1 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.95
Conservative Ensemble
4
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
MulLog-Q=0.9 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
5
CS-Logistic
Mul-Q=0.1 (Ours)
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
Mul-Q=0.95 (Ours)
Table 1: Summary of Benchmark Results, ranking is performed by TN/max(FN,0.1)
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Illustration of the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) density for different values of the tail index ξ .
Figure 3: Illustration of Proposition 3 . The histogram of the excesses Ek=Nk−Qu∣Nk>Qu,Nk∼N(0,1), above the u -quantile Qu is well approximated by a GPD with ξ=0 when u is sufficiently large.
Figure 4: Illustration of the distribution used in the synthetic experiments using their histograms on 3000 samples.
Figure 5: Comparison of the false negative rate ( FN ) when Xe∼Exp(5) . Notice that the practical estimator follows the same false negative constraint 1/(N1log(N1)) as the theoretical one as long as Qb≥0.9 for any N1∈{25,100,500} . We report the variability across 10000 repetitions using shaded bands corresponding to ±σ , ±2σ , and ±3σ , where σ denotes the standard deviation of FN over the 10000 repetitions.
Figure 6: Comparison of the false negative rate ( FN ) when Xe∼Gξ,1 with ξ=−10−5 . Notice that the practical estimator follows the same false negative constraint 1/(N1log(N1)) as the theoretical one as long as Qb≥0.9 for any N1∈{25,100,500} . We report the variability across 10000 repetitions using shaded bands corresponding to ±σ , ±2σ , and ±3σ , where σ denotes the standard deviation of FN over the 10000 repetitions.
Rank
ScreenX
Corruption
Credit
Mean Rank
1
Easy Ensemble
Conservative Ensemble
Conservative Ensemble
MulLog-Q=0.1 (Ours)
2
CS-NTA-XGBoost
CS-NTA-Logistic
CS-NTA-Logistic
CS-NTA-XGBoost
3
CS-XGBoost
Balanced Random Forest
NP-Logistic
Easy Ensemble
4
MulLog-Q=0.1 (Ours)
Easy Ensemble
CS-NTA-XGBoost
NP-Logistic
5
Mul-Q=0.1 (Ours)
CS-SVC-RBF
MulLog-Q=0.1 (Ours)
CS-NTA-Logistic
Appendix
Table 2: Summary of Benchmark Results, ranking is performed by TN/max(FN,1) and not TN/max(FN,0.1) .
Dataset
ScreenX
FN
TN
TN/max(FN,0.1)
TN/max(FN,1)
Method
Mul-Q=0.95 (Ours)
0.3 ± 0.2
5.5 ± 0.4
26.9 ± 16.1
5.5 ± 0.4
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.4 ± 0.2
6.8 ± 0.5
24.7 ± 17.4
6.8 ± 0.5
Conservative Ensemble
0.2 ± 0.1
3.5 ± 0.6
20.9 ± 6.6
3.5 ± 0.6
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
0.5 ± 0.2
5.6 ± 0.3
14.6 ± 7.4
5.6 ± 0.3
Appendix
Table 3: ScreenX benchmark results. We report the mean ± one standard deviation, computed over 10 repetitions with different random seeds, where each repetition corresponds to the mean performance across a 5-fold cross-validation.
Dataset
Corruption
FN
TN
TN/max(FN,0.1)
TN/max(FN,1)
Method
MulLog-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.0 ± 0.0
650.4 ± 14.4
6503.8 ± 144.0
650.4 ± 14.4
MulLog-Q=0.95 (Ours)
0.0 ± 0.0
588.0 ± 12.5
5880.0 ± 125.2
588.0 ± 12.5
MulLog-Q=0.1 (Ours)
0.3 ± 0.1
1208.9 ± 40.3
4848.9 ± 1605.5
1208.9 ± 40.3
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.0 ± 0.0
438.2 ± 0.0
4382.0 ± 0.0
438.2 ± 0.0
Appendix
Table 4: Corruption benchmark results. We report the mean ± one standard deviation, computed over 10 repetitions with different random seeds, where each repetition corresponds to the mean performance across a 5-fold cross-validation.
Dataset
Credit
FN
TN
TN/max(FN,0.1)
TN/max(FN,1)
Method
Mul-Q=0.1 (Ours)
0.2 ± 0.1
6732.6 ± 872.8
38852.9 ± 16596.4
6732.6 ± 872.8
Mul-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.1 ± 0.2
4377.2 ± 726.5
37114.9 ± 15397.2
4377.2 ± 726.5
Mul-Q=0.95 (Ours)
0.1 ± 0.2
4102.0 ± 882.4
34913.9 ± 15585.8
4102.0 ± 882.4
MulLog-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.3 ± 0.1
7240.4 ± 763.7
30633.0 ± 11490.8
7240.4 ± 763.7
Appendix
Table 5: Credit benchmark results. We report the mean ± one standard deviation, computed over 10 repetitions with different random seeds, where each repetition corresponds to the mean performance across a 5-fold cross-validation.
Dataset
Breast Cancer
FN
TN
TN/max(FN,0.1)
TN/max(FN,1)
Method
CS-Logistic
0.0 ± 0.0
32.4 ± 0.2
323.8 ± 1.8
32.4 ± 0.2
CS-NTA-Logistic
0.0 ± 0.0
31.6 ± 0.6
316.4 ± 6.2
31.6 ± 0.6
Conservative Ensemble
0.0 ± 0.0
31.0 ± 0.9
309.6 ± 9.2
31.0 ± 0.9
Log-Q=0.9 (Ours)
0.1 ± 0.3
37.7 ± 0.6
296.0 ± 132.8
37.7 ± 0.6
Appendix
Table 6: Breast Cancer benchmark results. We report the mean ± one standard deviation, computed over 10 repetitions with different random seeds, where each repetition corresponds to the mean performance across a 5-fold cross-validation.
Figure 7: Boxplot of Ratio( c=0.1 ) for the Top 5 Method on the dataset ScreenX.
Figure 8: Boxplot of Ratio( c=0.1 ) for the Top 5 Method on the dataset Corruption. The tiny box observed for Mul-Q=0.9 and Mul-Q=0.95 may appear unusual at first glance. However, we have carefully verified the results and confirmed that they are not due to an implementation error. The learning procedure is fully deterministic, with no source of randomness, and the different cross-validation seeds ultimately produce data splits that yield the same average performance across folds.
Figure 9: Boxplot of Ratio( c=0.1 ) for the Top 5 Method on the dataset Credit.
Figure 10: Boxplot of Ratio( c=0.1 ) for the Top 5 Method on the dataset Breast Cancer.
Feature
EBC-Max
EBC-Min
XGBoost
Logistic
Decision Tree
Random Forest
X1
0.000
1.000
0.0461
0.3135
0.0000
0.0084
X2
0.000
0.025
0.0241
-0.4158
0.0000
0.0383
X3
0.000
0.950
0.1074
0.4017
0.0933
0.1066
X4
0.000
1.000
0.1414
1.1880
0.2244
0.1531
X5
0.000
0.925
0.0468
0.6842
0.0220
0.0615
X6
0.000
0.075
0.0368
0.0228
0.0211
0.0558
Appendix
Table 7: Feature importance/coefficient summary across methods. EBC-Min records the frequency where the minimum of the negative sample distribution is significantly lower than the positive sample distribution across 40 train-test splits, same for EBC-Max after applying x↦−x to the data.
Rank
XGBoost
Logistic
Decision Tree
Random Forest
Highest Frequency Summary
1
X12
X12
X10
X4
X12
2
X10
X4
X12
X10
X10
3
X4
X8
X4
X4
X4
4
X3
X5
X8
X12
X3,X5
5
X8
X9
X3
X8
X8
Appendix
Table 8: Top 5 features ranked by absolute importance/coefficient for each method. In comparaison, the features always selected by our features selection mechanism are X1,X4,X8,X10,X12 and X3,X5 are selected more than 90% time of the 40 train-test split.
Figure 11: Barplot of the training time for the different methods on the dataset ScreenX. Runtime measurements were obtained on a CPU-only server with 4 GB of RAM.
Figure 12: Barplot of the training time for the different methods on the dataset Credit. Runtime measurements were obtained on a CPU-only server with 4 GB of RAM.
Figure 13: Barplot of the training time for the different methods on the dataset Corruption. Runtime measurements were obtained on a CPU-only server with 4 GB of RAM.
Figure 14: Barplot of the training time for the different methods on the dataset Breast Cancer. Runtime measurements were obtained on a CPU-only server with 4 GB of RAM.
Detecting observations from a minority class under severe class imbalance is a central challenge in applications such as fraud detection, medical screening, and industrial quality control. In these settings, each positive prediction triggers a costly follow-up action, an MRI scan, a transaction audit, whose execution is subject to real operational constraints. This paper proposes a formal classification framework under capacity constraints: given a user-defined bound limit b on the proportion of observations that can be labeled as belonging to the minority class, the goal is to find the classifier that maximizes sensitivity on that class. We characterize the optimal classifier under this constraint and establish its equivalence with the classical Bayes classifier under a reweighting of the prior probabilities. We also introduce a capacity-adjusted performance metric M that accounts for the effective detection rate when the capacity constraint is binding. The framework is implemented on top of standard learning methods, k-NN, SVM, random forests, and neural networks, and statistical consistency is established for each. We further show that these methods reduce to post-hoc thresholding when no hyperparameters are oriented toward the capacity-constrained objective, and introduce a capacity-aware support vector machine that exploits the constraint during training and achieves the strongest empirical performance. Experiments on the Taiwanese credit card default dataset confirm that capacity-constrained classifiers substantially outperform both classical approaches and SMOTE under high imbalance regimes. The framework extends naturally to multiclass settings and online environments.
Daniel Fraiman, Ricardo Fraiman
Departamento de Matem´atica y Ciencias, Universidad de San Andr´es, Buenos Aires, Argentina · CONICET, Argentina. · PEDECIBA, Matem´atica, Uruguay.
This paper introduces the use of per-class regularization hyperparameters in Gabriel graph-based binary classifiers. We demonstrate how the quality index used for regularization behaves both in the margin region and in the presence of outliers, and how incorporating this regularization flexibility can lead to solutions that effectively eliminate outliers while training the classifier. We also show how it can address class imbalance by generating higher and lower thresholds for the majority and minority classes, respectively. Thus, rather than having a single solution based on fixed thresholds, flexible thresholds expand the solution space and can be optimized through hyperparameter tuning algorithms. Friedman test shows that flexible thresholds are capable of improving Gabriel graph-based classifiers.
Vítor M. Hanriot, Turíbio T. Salis, Luiz C. B. Torres +2
Graduate Program in Electrical Engineering - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Av. Antônio Carlos 6627, 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil · Department of Computer and Systems - Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto - João Monlevade 35931-022, Brazil.
The practical success of deep learning has led to the discovery of several surprising phenomena. One of these phenomena, that has spurred intense theoretical research, is ``benign overfitting'': deep neural networks seem to generalize well in the over-parametrized regime even though the networks show a perfect fit to noisy training data. It is now known that benign overfitting also occurs in various classical statistical models. For linear maximum margin classifiers, benign overfitting has been established theoretically in a class of mixture models with very strong assumptions on the covariate distribution. However, even in this simple setting, many questions remain open. For instance, most of the existing literature focuses on the noiseless case where all true class labels are observed without errors, whereas the more interesting noisy case remains poorly understood. We provide a comprehensive study of benign overfitting for linear maximum margin classifiers. We discover a phase transition in test error bounds for the noisy model which was previously unknown and provide some geometric intuition behind it. We further considerably relax the required covariate assumptions in both the noisy and noiseless cases. Our results demonstrate that benign overfitting of maximum margin classifiers holds in a much wider range of scenarios than was previously known and provide new insights into the underlying mechanisms.
Ichiro Hashimoto, Stanislav Volgushev, Piotr Zwiernik
Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto