My understanding is, the result should be:
1. rank auc for each dataset
2. average all the ranks to arrive at final rank.
So the rank should be ordered small -> large, right? Current ranking on the results page seems reversed.
(Not that I'm arguing for the current position, my submission is the baseline file =] )
Posted by: xiayunsun @ Aug. 10, 2018, 7:45 a.m.Thanks for noticing this, we are working on this =)
Best
Interesting!!!!I am the best, but!!! Why auc is so low............and why someone's auc is negetive?
Posted by: Lean-Y @ Aug. 10, 2018, 12:25 p.m.
We are using gini index as evaluation measure, check the scoring program!
Best
Posted by: hugo.jair @ Aug. 10, 2018, 1:24 p.m.Hi
The ranking is now in the correct order, apologies for the issue
Best
Thanks a lot.
Posted by: xiayunsun @ Aug. 10, 2018, 2:43 p.m.Hi Hugo -- I think "Duration" column is sorted in the wrong order too? A shorter duration should imply a better model?
Posted by: xiayunsun @ Aug. 14, 2018, 2:28 p.m.Hi,
You are right, thank you very much!, duration is now shown in the right order. Please note that duration is only taken into account for tie-breaking
Best
HJ
Posted by: hugo.jair @ Aug. 14, 2018, 2:35 p.m.Yeah I understand. Thanks for the fast response!
Posted by: xiayunsun @ Aug. 14, 2018, 2:45 p.m.