Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Confusion matrix is not limited to binary classification and can be used in multi-class classifiers as well. The confusion matrices discussed above have only two conditions: positive and negative. For example, the table below summarizes communication of a whistled language between two speakers, with zero values omitted for clarity. [20]
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 ...
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. As the classes are so unbalanced, a better metric is the F1 score = 2 × 0.01 × 1 / 0.01 + 1 ≈ 2% (the recall being 10 + 0 / 10 ...
In a classification task, the precision for a class is the number of true positives (i.e. the number of items correctly labelled as belonging to the positive class) divided by the total number of elements labelled as belonging to the positive class (i.e. the sum of true positives and false positives, which are items incorrectly labelled as belonging to the class).
Accuracy is also used as a statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies or excludes a condition. That is, the accuracy is the proportion of correct predictions (both true positives and true negatives) among the total number of cases examined. [10]
In statistics, the phi coefficient (or mean square contingency coefficient and denoted by φ or r φ) is a measure of association for two binary variables.. In machine learning, it is known as the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and used as a measure of the quality of binary (two-class) classifications, introduced by biochemist Brian W. Matthews in 1975.
The log diagnostic odds ratio is sometimes used in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies due to its simplicity (being approximately normally distributed). [ 4 ] Traditional meta-analytic techniques such as inverse-variance weighting can be used to combine log diagnostic odds ratios computed from a number of data sources to produce ...
One supposed problem with SMAPE is that it is not symmetric since over- and under-forecasts are not treated equally. The following example illustrates this by applying the second SMAPE formula: Over-forecasting: A t = 100 and F t = 110 give SMAPE = 4.76%; Under-forecasting: A t = 100 and F t = 90 give SMAPE = 5.26%.