Jämför metoder

	Balanserad träffsäkerhet	F1-poäng	Matthews Korrelationskoefficient	Precision
Ämnesområde	Modellutvärdering	Modellutvärdering	Modellutvärdering	Modellutvärdering
Familj	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM
Ursprungsår	2010	1979	1975	20th century
Upphovsperson	Brodersen, Ong, Stephan, and Buhmann	C. J. van Rijsbergen	Brian W. Matthews	Historical statistical foundations
Typ	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric
Ursprungskälla	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.	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.	Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874.
Alias	Average Recall, Equal-weight Average Sensitivity	F-measure, Harmonic Mean	Phi Coefficient, Binary Classification Correlation	Positive Predictive Value, PPV
Närliggande	5	5	5	5
Sammanfattning	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.	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.	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.