Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy).
Different from the above approaches, if an imbalance scaling is applied directly by weighting the confusion matrix elements, the standard metrics definitions still apply even in the case of imbalanced datasets. [19] The weighting procedure relates the confusion matrix elements to the support set of each considered class.
These can be arranged into a 2×2 contingency table (confusion matrix), conventionally with the test result on the vertical axis and the actual condition on the horizontal axis. These numbers can then be totaled, yielding both a grand total and marginal totals. Totaling the entire table, the number of true positives, false negatives, true ...
Confusion matrix. The relationship between sensitivity, specificity, and similar terms can be understood using the following table. Consider a group with P positive ...
The resulting number gives an estimate on how many positive examples the feature could correctly identify within the data, with higher numbers meaning that the feature could correctly classify more positive samples. Below is an example of how to use the metric when the full confusion matrix of a certain feature is given: Feature A Confusion Matrix
log(Diagnostic Odds Ratio) for varying sensitivity and specificity. In medical testing with binary classification, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) is a measure of the effectiveness of a diagnostic test. [1]
Confusion matrix; Pivot table, in spreadsheet software, cross-tabulates sampling data with counts (contingency table) and/or sums. TPL Tables is a tool for generating and printing crosstabs. The iterative proportional fitting procedure essentially manipulates contingency tables to match altered joint distributions or marginal sums.
Even though the accuracy is 10 + 999000 / 1000000 ≈ 99.9%, 990 out of the 1000 positive predictions are incorrect. The precision of 10 / 10 + 990 = 1% reveals its poor performance.