Traditional machine learning follows a close-set assumption that the training and test set share the same label space. While in many practical scenarios, it is inevitable that some test samples belong to unknown classes (open-set). To fix this issue, Open-Set Recognition (OSR), whose goal is to make correct predictions on both close-set samples and open-set samples, has attracted rising attention. In this direction, the vast majority of literature focuses on the pattern of open-set samples. However, how to evaluate model performance in this challenging task is still unsolved. In this paper, a systematic analysis reveals that most existing metrics are essentially inconsistent with the aforementioned goal of OSR: (1) For metrics extended from close-set classification, such as Open-set F-score, Youden's index, and Normalized Accuracy, a poor open-set prediction can escape from a low performance score with a superior close-set prediction.

To this end, how to optimize the AUC performance has raised wide attention. As shown in Fig.3(a), given an open-set sample ( x AUC suffers from the inconsistency property III. To be specific, according to the prediction process described in Sec.2, if we select As shown in Fig.3(c), we have OpenAUC(h,r) OpenAUC( h, r) = 1 N C.5 Proof for Proposition 8 Proposition 8. Optimizing OpenAUC is equivalent to the following risk minimization problem: min Meanwhile, the hyperparameter λ is searched in { 0.1, 0 .2 During the test phase, open-set samples are available. In this section, we present the empirical results on fine-grained datasets.

However, how to evaluate model performance in this challenging task is still unsolved.

However, how to evaluate model performance in this challenging task is still unsolved.

Traditional machine learning follows a close-set assumption that the training and test set share the same label space. While in many practical scenarios, it is inevitable that some test samples belong to unknown classes (open-set). To fix this issue, Open-Set Recognition (OSR), whose goal is to make correct predictions on both close-set samples and open-set samples, has attracted rising attention. In this direction, the vast majority of literature focuses on the pattern of open-set samples. However, how to evaluate model performance in this challenging task is still unsolved.

Traditional machine learning follows a close-set assumption that the training and test set share the same label space. While in many practical scenarios, it is inevitable that some test samples belong to unknown classes (open-set). To fix this issue, Open-Set Recognition (OSR), whose goal is to make correct predictions on both close-set samples and open-set samples, has attracted rising attention. In this direction, the vast majority of literature focuses on the pattern of open-set samples. However, how to evaluate model performance in this challenging task is still unsolved. In this paper, a systematic analysis reveals that most existing metrics are essentially inconsistent with the aforementioned goal of OSR: (1) For metrics extended from close-set classification, such as Open-set F-score, Youden's index, and Normalized Accuracy, a poor open-set prediction can escape from a low performance score with a superior close-set prediction. (2) Novelty detection AUC, which measures the ranking performance between close-set and open-set samples, ignores the close-set performance. To fix these issues, we propose a novel metric named OpenAUC. Compared with existing metrics, OpenAUC enjoys a concise pairwise formulation that evaluates open-set performance and close-set performance in a coupling manner. Further analysis shows that OpenAUC is free from the aforementioned inconsistency properties. Finally, an end-to-end learning method is proposed to minimize the OpenAUC risk, and the experimental results on popular benchmark datasets speak to its effectiveness. Project Page: https://github.com/wang22ti/OpenAUC.