Compara mètodes

	Coeficient de Correlació de Matthews	Precisió equilibrada	Puntuació F1	Recordació (Sensibilitat)
Camp	Avaluació de models	Avaluació de models	Avaluació de models	Avaluació de models
Família	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM
Any d'origen	1975	2010	1979	20th century
Autor original	Brian W. Matthews	Brodersen, Ong, Stephan, and Buhmann	C. J. van Rijsbergen	Historical statistical foundations
Tipus	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric
Font seminal	Matthews, B. W. (1975). Comparison of predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Protein Structure, 405(2), 442-451.	Brodersen, K. H., Ong, C. S., Stephan, K. E., & Buhmann, J. M. (2010). The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution. 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 3121-3124.	van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.	Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874.
Àlies	Phi Coefficient, Binary Classification Correlation	Average Recall, Equal-weight Average Sensitivity	F-measure, Harmonic Mean	Sensitivity, True Positive Rate, TPR
Relacionats	5	5	5	5
Resum	The Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) is a correlation measure between predicted and actual binary classifications. It ranges from -1 to 1 and is considered one of the most reliable single-score metrics for evaluating binary classifiers, especially on imbalanced datasets.	Balanced accuracy is the average of recall values computed for each class separately. It corrects for class imbalance by giving equal weight to the performance on each class, regardless of class frequency in the dataset.	The F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a single metric that balances both concerns. It was introduced by van Rijsbergen in information retrieval and has become a standard metric for evaluating classification models where both precision and recall are important.	Recall measures the proportion of actual positive cases that were correctly identified by the classifier. It answers the question: 'Of all the cases that were truly positive, how many did we find?' Recall is critical in scenarios where missing positive cases is costly.