Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Mikro vidējais F1 rādītājs× | F1 svērtais novērtējums× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Modeļu novērtēšana | Modeļu novērtēšana |
| Saime | MCDM | MCDM |
| Izcelsmes gads | 2000s | 2000s |
| Autors | Multi-class evaluation community | Multi-class evaluation community |
| Tips | Evaluation metric | Evaluation metric |
| Pirmavots | 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 ↗ | 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 ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | Micro F1, Frequency-weighted average F1 | Support-weighted F1 |
| Saistītās≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | Micro-averaged F1 computes the F1-score by aggregating true positives, false positives, and false negatives across all classes, then calculating a single metric. It is equivalent to accuracy in multi-class classification and is useful when class distributions reflect their natural importance. | Weighted F1 computes the F1-score for each class and then takes a weighted average, where weights are proportional to the number of samples in each class (support). It provides a middle ground between macro and micro-averaging. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|