Fdtxjr

I use two machine learning algorithms for binary classification and I get this result :

Algo 1 :

 AUC- Train : 0.75 AUC- Test: 0.65 big Train / overfitting

Algo 2 :

 AUC- Train : 0.72 AUC- Test: 0.65 small train / small overfitting

Which one is better?

Based on the AUC score they are the same. It does not really matter if the model is overfitting or not. What matters is how well it performs on new data (test score).

Overfitting is just an indication that there might be room for improvement by making your model more general. But until the test score has increased the model has not improved even if it is overfitting less.

Algo 2

Between equal test scores choose the one with less difference between training and test scores (Algo 2), since the one with better training score (Algo 1) is more over-fitted. We tolerate a more over-fitted model only if it has a subjectively better test score.

For a better justification, think of how we train a neural network. When validation score stops improving, we stop the training process even though training score will keep improving. If we let the training continue, the model will start making extra assumptions based on the training set that are not scrutinized by the critic (validation set) which makes the model more prone to building false assumptions about the data.

By the same token, a model (Algo 1) that has the same performance based on the critic (test set) but performs better on training set is prone to have made untested assumptions about the data.

Just based on this metric you can not find which one is better because AUC could not differentiate these two result. You should use some other metrics such as Kappa or some benchmarks.

Disclaimer:

If you are using Python I suggest PyCM module which get your confusion matrix as input and calculate about 100 overall and class-based metrics.

For using this module at first prepare your confusion matrix and see it's recommended parameters by the following code:

>>> from pycm import *

>>> cm = ConfusionMatrix(matrix="0": "0": 1, "1":0, "2": 0, "1": "0": 0, "1": 1, "2": 2, "2": "0": 0, "1": 1, "2": 0) 

>>> print(cm.recommended_list)
["Kappa", "SOA1(Landis & Koch)", "SOA2(Fleiss)", "SOA3(Altman)", "SOA4(Cicchetti)", "CEN", "MCEN", "MCC", "J", "Overall J", "Overall MCC", "Overall CEN", "Overall MCEN", "AUC", "AUCI", "G", "DP", "DPI", "GI"]

and then see the value of the metrics focusing on the recommended metrics by the following code:

>>> print(cm)
 Predict 0 1 2 
 Actual
 0 1 0 0 
 1 0 1 2 
 2 0 1 0 




Overall Statistics : 

95% CI (-0.02941,0.82941)
Bennett_S 0.1
Chi-Squared 6.66667
Chi-Squared DF 4
Conditional Entropy 0.55098
Cramer_V 0.8165
Cross Entropy 1.52193
Gwet_AC1 0.13043
Joint Entropy 1.92193
KL Divergence 0.15098
Kappa 0.0625
Kappa 95% CI (-0.60846,0.73346)
Kappa No Prevalence -0.2
Kappa Standard Error 0.34233
Kappa Unbiased 0.03226
Lambda A 0.5
Lambda B 0.66667
Mutual Information 0.97095
Overall_ACC 0.4
Overall_RACC 0.36
Overall_RACCU 0.38
PPV_Macro 0.5
PPV_Micro 0.4
Phi-Squared 1.33333
Reference Entropy 1.37095
Response Entropy 1.52193
Scott_PI 0.03226
Standard Error 0.21909
Strength_Of_Agreement(Altman) Poor
Strength_Of_Agreement(Cicchetti) Poor
Strength_Of_Agreement(Fleiss) Poor
Strength_Of_Agreement(Landis and Koch) Slight
TPR_Macro 0.44444
TPR_Micro 0.4

Class Statistics :

Classes 0 1 2 
ACC(Accuracy) 1.0 0.4 0.4 
BM(Informedness or bookmaker informedness) 1.0 -0.16667 -0.5 
DOR(Diagnostic odds ratio) None 0.5 0.0 
ERR(Error rate) 0.0 0.6 0.6 
F0.5(F0.5 score) 1.0 0.45455 0.0 
F1(F1 score - harmonic mean of precision and sensitivity) 1.0 0.4 0.0 
F2(F2 score) 1.0 0.35714 0.0 
FDR(False discovery rate) 0.0 0.5 1.0 
FN(False negative/miss/type 2 error) 0 2 1 
FNR(Miss rate or false negative rate) 0.0 0.66667 1.0 
FOR(False omission rate) 0.0 0.66667 0.33333 
FP(False positive/type 1 error/false alarm) 0 1 2 
FPR(Fall-out or false positive rate) 0.0 0.5 0.5 
G(G-measure geometric mean of precision and sensitivity) 1.0 0.40825 0.0 
LR+(Positive likelihood ratio) None 0.66667 0.0 
LR-(Negative likelihood ratio) 0.0 1.33333 2.0 
MCC(Matthews correlation coefficient) 1.0 -0.16667 -0.40825 
MK(Markedness) 1.0 -0.16667 -0.33333 
N(Condition negative) 4 2 4 
NPV(Negative predictive value) 1.0 0.33333 0.66667 
P(Condition positive) 1 3 1 
POP(Population) 5 5 5 
PPV(Precision or positive predictive value) 1.0 0.5 0.0 
PRE(Prevalence) 0.2 0.6 0.2 
RACC(Random accuracy) 0.04 0.24 0.08 
RACCU(Random accuracy unbiased) 0.04 0.25 0.09 
TN(True negative/correct rejection) 4 1 2 
TNR(Specificity or true negative rate) 1.0 0.5 0.5 
TON(Test outcome negative) 4 3 3 
TOP(Test outcome positive) 1 2 2 
TP(True positive/hit) 1 1 0 
TPR(Sensitivity, recall, hit rate, or true positive rate) 1.0 0.33333 0.0