Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Model Evaluation›F1-Score
MCDMClassification Metric

F1-Score

F1-Score (Harmonic Mean of Precision and Recall) · Also known as: F-measure, Harmonic Mean

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.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

F1-Score
F-beta ScoreMacro-averaged F1PrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Weighted F1AccuracyBalanced AccuracyJaccard IndexLog-Loss (Cross-Entropy…Matthews Correlation Coe…

+4 more

When to use it

Use F1-score when both false positives and false negatives are costly and you want a single metric that balances both concerns. It is appropriate for imbalanced datasets where accuracy is misleading and you want to avoid extreme bias toward either precision or recall. F1-score is popular in NLP, text classification, and medical diagnosis where both precision and recall matter.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Balances precision and recall in a single metric, discouraging extreme strategies.
  • Handles imbalanced datasets better than accuracy alone.
  • Harmonic mean emphasizes balance; very low precision or recall significantly penalizes F1-score.
  • Widely used and understood in machine learning and academic literature.
Limitations
  • Does not account for true negatives; a model could have high F1-score but poor specificity.
  • Assumes precision and recall are equally important, which may not hold in all domains.
  • Can be sensitive to small changes in classification decisions near the decision boundary.
  • May not be appropriate when false positives and false negatives have very different costs.

Frequently asked

Why use the harmonic mean instead of the arithmetic mean of precision and recall?

The harmonic mean is more sensitive to extreme values. If precision is 0.99 and recall is 0.01, the arithmetic mean is 0.50, but the harmonic mean (F1-score) is approximately 0.02, which better reflects the model's actual uselessness. The harmonic mean penalizes imbalance between precision and recall.

How does F1-score differ from balanced accuracy?

F1-score depends on precision and recall, which focus on positive predictions. Balanced accuracy is the average of recall (sensitivity to positive cases) and specificity (sensitivity to negative cases). F1-score ignores true negatives, while balanced accuracy weighs both types of correct predictions equally.

When should I use macro-averaged vs. micro-averaged F1 on multi-class problems?

Use macro-averaged F1 when you want to weight all classes equally, giving more weight to rare classes. Use micro-averaged F1 when you want to weight by class frequency (more common classes matter more). Macro-averaging is preferable when rare classes are important; micro-averaging is equivalent to accuracy for multi-class problems.

Sources

  1. van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. link ↗
  2. Powers, D. M. (2011). Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation. Journal of Machine Learning Technologies, 2(1), 37-63. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). F1-Score (Harmonic Mean of Precision and Recall). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/model-evaluation/f1-score

Related methods

F-beta ScoreMacro-averaged F1PrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Weighted F1

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • F-beta ScoreModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • Macro-averaged F1Model Evaluation↔ compare
  • PrecisionModel Evaluation↔ compare
  • Recall (Sensitivity)Model Evaluation↔ compare
  • Weighted F1Model Evaluation↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

AccuracyBalanced AccuracyF-beta ScoreJaccard IndexLog-Loss (Cross-Entropy Loss)Macro-averaged F1Matthews Correlation CoefficientMicro-averaged F1PrecisionPrecision-Recall AUCRecall (Sensitivity)SpecificityWeighted F1Youdens J Statistic

Similar methods

F-beta ScoreMacro-averaged F1Micro-averaged F1Weighted F1Balanced AccuracyPrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Accuracy

Related reference concepts

Performance MetricsIR Effectiveness MetricsSensitivityEvaluation and AnnotationReceiver Operating Characteristic CurveModel Evaluation and Selection

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — F1-Score (F1-Score (Harmonic Mean of Precision and Recall)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/model-evaluation/f1-score · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
C. J. van Rijsbergen
Subfamily
Classification Metric
Year
1979
Type
Evaluation metric
Related methods
F-beta ScoreMacro-averaged F1PrecisionRecall (Sensitivity)Weighted F1
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account