Abstract
BackgroundTo evaluate binary classifications and their confusion matrices, scientific researchers can employ several statistical rates, accordingly to the goal of the experiment they are investigating. Despite being a crucial issue in machine learning, no widespread consensus has been reached on a unified elective chosen measure yet. Accuracy and F1 score computed on confusion matrices have been (and still are) among the most popular adopted metrics in binary classification tasks. However, these statistical measures can dangerously show overoptimistic inflated results, especially on imbalanced datasets.ResultsThe Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), instead, is a more reliable statistical rate which produces a high score only if the prediction obtained good results in all of the four confusion matrix categories (true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives), proportionally both to the size of positive elements and the size of negative elements in the dataset.ConclusionsIn this article, we show how MCC produces a more informative and truthful score in evaluating binary classifications than accuracy and F1 score, by first explaining the mathematical properties, and then the asset of MCC in six synthetic use cases and in a real genomics scenario. We believe that the Matthews correlation coefficient should be preferred to accuracy and F1 score in evaluating binary classification tasks by all scientific communities.
Highlights
To evaluate binary classifications and their confusion matrices, scientific researchers can employ several statistical rates, to the goal of the experiment they are investigating
If a confusion matrix threshold is at disposal, instead, we recommend the usage of the Matthews correlation coefficient over F1 score, and accuracy
We decided to focus on accuracy and F1 score because they are the most common metrics used for binary classification in machine learning
Summary
To evaluate binary classifications and their confusion matrices, scientific researchers can employ several statistical rates, to the goal of the experiment they are investigating. Despite being a crucial issue in machine learning, no widespread consensus has been reached on a unified elective chosen measure yet. Accuracy and F1 score computed on confusion matrices have been (and still are) among the most popular adopted metrics in binary classification tasks. These statistical measures can dangerously show overoptimistic inflated results, especially on imbalanced datasets. Answering these questions is the aim of machine learning and computational statistics, nowadays pervasive in analysis of biological and health care datasets, and (2020) 21:6. Typical cases include the application of machine learning methods to microarray gene expressions [10] or to single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [11] to classify particular conditions of patients. There are several consolidated and well known facts driving the choice of evaluating measures in the current practice
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.