Precision vs. Recall in the Quest for Model Mastery

If you would like to contribute your own blog post, feel free to reach out to us via We typically pay a symbolic fee for content that’s accepted by our reviewers.


Choosing the most accurate machine learning (ML) model might seem like the best approach to reduce errors, yet not all errors have an equal impact. It’s essential to weigh the kinds of errors you’re willing to tolerate. Understanding the relevance of precision and recall in your classification model’s performance can guide you to make more sophisticated decisions.

In ML, classification tasks involve sorting data into predefined categories. A common example is identifying whether an email is spam, representing a binary classification problem. As data becomes more complex and the number of categories increases, so too does the complexity of the model. However, creating the model is just the beginning. To truly understand a model’s effectiveness, key metrics such as accuracy, precision, and recall are used, often derived from an analytical method known as the confusion matrix. These metrics clarify the model’s success in achieving its classification objectives and pinpoint where improvements are needed to ensure it meets the expected outcomes.

Confusion Matrix

The confusion matrix is important for evaluating the performance of classification models. It offers a visual comparison between actual and predicted outcomes, helping to pinpoint exactly how accurate the model is and where it can be improved.

At its core, the confusion matrix lays out the actual outcomes against the model’s predictions in a simple table format. By categorizing predictions, the confusion matrix allows for a detailed analysis, aiding in refining and optimizing the model.

The key components of the confusion matrix are:

  • True positives (TP): Instances where the model correctly predicts the positive category, such as accurately flagging a fraudulent transaction as fraudulent.
  • True negatives (TN): Instances where the model correctly identifies the negative category, such as correctly recognizing a legitimate transaction.
  • False positives (FP): Errors where the model mistakenly predicts the positive category, like wrongly labeling a legitimate transaction as fraudulent.
  • False negatives (FN): Errors where the model misses a positive case, mistakenly identifying it as negative, such as overlooking a fraudulent transaction and considering it legitimate.

In the confusion matrix, the diagonal from the top left to the bottom right shows the correct predictions, including both TP and TN. The opposite diagonal indicates incorrect predictions, encompassing FP and FN. By examining this matrix, you can derive several important performance metrics such as accuracy, precision, and recall. Each of these metrics provides insights into the model’s performance, highlighting its strong points and areas that need improvement.

Precision vs. Recall

The precision vs. recall debate in ML centers around choosing which metric to prioritize based on the specific application of the model.

Precision refers to the accuracy with which a model identifies relevant instances among all its labels as relevant. In other words, it’s the proportion of true positives out of all positives the model identifies.

Precision Formula

Recall, on the other hand, measures the model’s ability to find all relevant instances within the data. It calculates the fraction of true positives out of the total actual relevant elements.

Recall Formula

For example, consider an AI tasked with filtering emails into “spam” and “not spam.” Suppose it processes 1000 emails, accurately identifying 990 as “not spam” and 10 as “spam.” However, it incorrectly labels 1 “not spam” email as “spam.” While the model’s accuracy is high, focusing solely on accuracy might overlook the importance of the mistake type.

Let’s use another scenario to illustrate the potential limitations of relying solely on accuracy: Imagine a diagnostic tool screening for a rare disease in 1000 patients, where only 3 have the disease. The tool correctly identifies 2 of these but misses 1, while also incorrectly flagging 5 healthy individuals as having the disease. Despite its 99.7% accuracy, the tool’s failure to catch all disease cases (a recall issue) could be more critical than its precision.

These examples highlight why focusing solely on accuracy might be misleading, especially in situations where the cost of certain types of mistakes is high. Precision and recall offer a more detailed view of a model’s performance, helping to balance the trade-off between catching as many true positives as possible and minimizing false positives. Depending on the application, such as medical diagnostics or spam detection, prioritizing recall or precision can lead to more informed, effective decisions.

Precision vs. Recall

Image from DALL-E: Precision vs. Recall

Precision and recall are two sides of the same coin, each measuring a specific aspect of model performance. Precision, on the one hand, answers the question, “Of all the instances the model labeled as positive, how many were correct?” This is especially important in scenarios where the cost of a false positive is high. For example, in email spam detection, high precision means that fewer non-spam emails are incorrectly marked as spam. Recall, on the other hand, measures the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified by the model, essentially asking, “Of all the actual positives, how many did the model manage to catch?” High recall is particularly important in situations where missing a positive instance carries a significant cost, such as in disease screening, where failing to identify a sick patient could have dire consequences.


Precision vs. Recall in the Quest for Model Mastery

  • Reduce Risk
  • Simplify Compliance
  • Gain Visibility
  • Version Comparison

Precision vs. Recall Curve

The precision vs. recall curve provides a visual representation of the trade-off between these two metrics. As one attempts to increase precision, recall often decreases, and vice versa. This curve is a valuable tool for model evaluation, helping to select a model that best meets their specific requirements.

The curve serves as a measure of the model’s performance in accurately predicting the minority class by looking at the rate of correct positive predictions against the actual positives. A model that brings the precision-recall curve closer to the top-right corner of the plot is considered to perform well, as it indicates high precision and recall levels simultaneously. This signifies the model’s strength in classifying instances correctly, even when dealing with imbalanced class distributions.

Precision vs. Recall Curve

Precision-Recall Curve

Adjusting the classification threshold has a direct influence on the precision-recall curve. Lowering the threshold tends to increase recall while decreasing precision, which can be visualized as the curve stretching toward higher recall values. On the other hand, raising the threshold boosts precision at the cost of recall, shifting the curve towards higher precision values. This visualization helps in selecting the most appropriate threshold for a given application by showing the impact of threshold adjustments on the precision and recall balance.

Let’s introduce the PR curves for four distinct model types: the “no skill” model, which serves as a baseline; the perfect model, which represents an ideal scenario; the good model, indicating practical, effective performance; and the bad model, which highlights potential areas for improvement. Each of these models demonstrates different characteristics on the PR curve, from the flat line to the perfect score that signifies flawless prediction.

PR curve for a “no skill” model

A ‘no skill’ model, which predicts a constant score (0.5) for all instances, is illustrated by two points on the PR curve. The first point is at the threshold of 0.5, and the second point covers thresholds less than 0.5. For thresholds greater than 0.5, precision is undefined because it results in a division by zero, given no TP is predicted. The precision level is constant, reflecting the class imbalance ratio (e.g., 0.1), with an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.1.

PR curve for a perfect model

The PR curve of an ideal model also shows two points. The first point covers thresholds greater than 0 and up to 1, indicating perfect precision and recall across these thresholds. The second point is at a threshold of 0, maintaining perfect performance. Such a model achieves the maximum AUC of 1, indicating flawless prediction capabilities.

PR curve for a good model

A good model’s PR curve includes multiple points, each representing different threshold settings that yield various precision and recall values. Points range from a threshold of 1 (indicating a start of prediction) to thresholds between 0 and 1, with the endpoint at a threshold of 0. The AUC for a good model falls between 0.1 and 1, showing better performance than a ‘no skill’ model but not necessarily perfect.

PR curve for a bad model

A bad model’s PR curve can fall below the baseline established by the ‘no skill’ model, suggesting performance worse than random guessing. Reversing the model’s output predictions (switching Class 0 and Class 1) might unexpectedly improve its performance above the baseline. This situation usually signals a problem in the modeling process, which could be due to overly simplistic models applied to complex data or data that is too random for the model to identify any useful patterns. The AUC for such models is less than 0.1, indicating poor performance.

One real-world scenario involves a website with many free sign-ups, aiming to pinpoint potential buyers. While mistakenly identifying a non-buyer has minimal repercussions, overlooking a real buyer represents a missed revenue opportunity. This situation demands a strategy favoring recall, even at the expense of lower precision.

Alternatively, consider a store with 100 apples, including 10 that are spoiled. A selection method with 20% recall might only pick out 18 fresh apples. If a customer’s need is just for 5 apples, the missed good apples (FN) don’t pose a significant issue. However, for the store’s goal of selling as many apples as possible, maximizing recall to ensure all good apples are identified becomes crucial.

These examples illustrate how the choice between precision and recall is influenced by the specific needs and consequences inherent in different applications, highlighting the importance of aligning model evaluation strategies with the ultimate objectives of the task.


As we’ve explored, scenarios demanding high precision focus on ensuring that every positive prediction counts, especially when resources are limited and costs are high. Conversely, situations that necessitate high recall emphasize the importance of not missing any positive instances, even if it means tolerating some level of imprecision. These principles are not merely theoretical; they are mirrored in real-world applications, from health care to retail, highlighting the dynamic interplay between precision and recall in achieving optimal outcomes. This shows how important it is to choose between precision and recall based on what you need from your model.

What metric to prioritize?

In certain cases, even a model performing poorly overall might exceed baseline performance at specific thresholds, underscoring the importance of thoroughly examining model outputs and considering adjustments based on PR curve insights.

The decision to prioritize precision or recall in an ML application is driven by the specific context of the task and the relative costs associated with different types of errors. Each metric illuminates distinct aspects of a model’s performance, with their relevance varying according to the problem at hand. In situations where the consequences of FP are severe, precision is key. For example, in an email marketing campaign targeting a large list, where sending each email incurs significant costs, it’s essential to ensure that messages reach individuals who are more likely to be interested. High precision in this context helps focus resources on engaging likely customers, reducing expenditure on those less inclined to respond. Conversely, recall becomes important in scenarios where missing a positive case (FN) could lead to grave outcomes. In healthcare, particularly regarding flu vaccinations, failing to vaccinate someone who is at risk can have serious implications. Here, the minor cost of vaccinating someone who might not need it is outweighed by the benefits of broad coverage, making a strong case for prioritizing recall.

Understanding the precision-recall trade-off is important for developing effective ML models. It’s a reminder that behind every algorithm lies a series of strategic decisions shaped by the context of the problem at hand. After you get the idea of balancing precision and recall, the next step is to use what you’ve learned. Try adjusting the balance in your projects to find the best setting for your goals. This effort can lead to better results from your machine learning models.

Analyze your models’ performance metrics, challenge the balance between precision and recall in your applications, and continuously strive for that optimal threshold that best serves your objectives. Remember, the power to improve model performance and, by extension, the quality of outcomes rests in understanding and applying these metrics effectively.


Precision vs. Recall in the Quest for Model Mastery

  • Reduce Risk
  • Simplify Compliance
  • Gain Visibility
  • Version Comparison

Webinar Event
The Best LLM Safety-Net to Date:
Deepchecks, Garak, and NeMo Guardrails 🚀
June 18th, 2024    8:00 AM PST

Register NowRegister Now