AUC with incomplete ROC curve I am doing an experiments where changing a parameter I am obtaining different number of FalsePositive, FalseNegative... and so on.
I am using this parameter tuning as threshold tuning to obtain FPR and TPR to build a ROC curve.
However, the problem is so easy tha it gets most of the time the point near [1,0]. I never have any point near [1,1]. If I want to compute the AUC, what am I supposed to do? To add artificially a point [1,1]?
Moreover, for another experiment I have some values of TPR and FPR which are disproportionated to other cases, and they look weird.
Thank you.
Best,

Thank you. Now I am using directly probabilities from the classifier. However, I am still not getting to the point [1,1].
 A: To create a ROC curve, you need to vary the decision threshold of a single classifier, not the parameters of the model itself.
I recommend Tom Fawcett's "An Introduction to ROC Analysis" to get started with ROC analysis. He gives an algorithm to correctly build the full ROC curve that always contains all thresholds, including (0,0) and (1,1) (see Algorithm 1, p. 866).
A: If Calimo's answer has helped you generate a legitimate ROC curve, it's OK to manually add a point at (0, 0) or (1, 1) if you're trying to calculate the AUC by summing up the areas of rectangles. 
Note that there are other interpretations of AUC that don't invoke the ROC curve at all, e.g. a concordance measure. See the accepted answere here for more detail.
Finally, I think your original question might be reflecting a misunderstanding of how the ROC curve is constructed; in addition to Tom Fawcett's paper that Calimo linked to, a while ago I put together a visual introduction that you or other visitors might find helpful:
https://callumwebby.com/portfolio/ROC/
I haven't got around to discussing AUC, but it includes some example code that might help understanding. You'll see that I manually add a point at (0, 0) just so the endpoints span the full space.
A: Ok, it looks to me like, as you say, your task is far to easy and you are achieving a really high d' with maybe a change in variance. However, it is hard to say unless you actually fit an unequal-variant SDT model to your empirical data. Honestly, you are probably never going to get enough power in your experiment to go to [1,1]. You really should reduce the level of discriminability between your target and noise stimuli to remove the ceiling effect. I really can't see anything wrong with calculating AUC from what you have already. But you should really adjust your stimuli (e.g. make your noise stimuli more similar to the target stimuli - or degrade the target stimuli) and redo the experiment. You should notice a reduction in AUC and the data reaching a perfect detection further towards [1,1].  
