Võrdle meetodeid

	Matthews' korrelatsioonikoefitsient	Tasakaalustatud täpsus	F1-hinne	Täpsus
Valdkond	Mudelite hindamine	Mudelite hindamine	Mudelite hindamine	Mudelite hindamine
Perekond	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM
Tekkeaasta	1975	2010	1979	20th century
Looja	Brian W. Matthews	Brodersen, Ong, Stephan, and Buhmann	C. J. van Rijsbergen	Historical statistical foundations
Tüüp	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric
Algallikas	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.
Rööpnimetused	Phi Coefficient, Binary Classification Correlation	Average Recall, Equal-weight Average Sensitivity	F-measure, Harmonic Mean	Positive Predictive Value, PPV
Seotud	5	5	5	5
Kokkuvõte	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.	Precision measures the proportion of positive predictions that were actually correct. It answers the question: 'Of all the cases we predicted as positive, how many were truly positive?' Precision is critical in scenarios where false positives are costly.