The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Real-World-Weight Cross-Entropy Loss Function: Modeling the Costs of Mislabeling
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we propose a new metric to measure goodness-of-fit for classifiers: the Real World Cost function. This metric factors in information about a real world problem, such as financial impact, that other measures like accuracy or F1 do not. This metric is also more directly interpretable for users. To optimize for this metric, we introduce the Real-World-Weight Cross-Entropy loss function, in both binary classification and single-label multiclass classification variants. Both variants allow direct input of real world costs as weights. For single-label, multiclass classification, our loss function also allows direct penalization of probabilistic false positives, weighted by label, during the training of a machine learning model. We compare the design of our loss function to the binary cross-entropy and categorical cross-entropy functions, as well as their weighted variants, to discuss the potential for improvement in handling a variety of known shortcomings of machine learning, ranging from imbalanced classes to medical diagnostic error to reinforcement of social bias. We create scenarios that emulate those issues using the MNIST data set and demonstrate empirical results of our new loss function. Finally, we discuss our intuition about why this approach works and sketch a proof based on Maximum Likelihood Estimation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection
Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., & Dollar, P. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.324 · Cited by 30,581
The class imbalance problem: A systematic study1
Japkowicz, N., & Stephen, S. (2002) · Intelligent Data Analysis · doi:10.3233/ida-2002-6504 · Cited by 3,295
Class-Balanced Loss Based on Effective Number of Samples
Cui, Y., Jia, M., Lin, T.-Y., Song, Y., & Belongie, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00949 · Cited by 3,094
Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615
Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection
Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., & Dollár, P. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.02002 · Cited by 1,227
AI can be sexist and racist — it’s time to make it fair
Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05707-8 · Cited by 765
Cited by
Sturm, F., Trat, M., Sathiyababu, R., Allipilli, H., Menz, B., Hergenroether, E., & Siegel, M. (2025) · Machine Vision and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00138-024-01638-9 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, Y., & Wookey, S.
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 4806-4813
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2997604048
- Cited by
- 835
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 27.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.