Classification accuracy is a statistic that describes a classification model's performance by dividing the number of correct predictions by the total number of predictions. It is simple to compute and comprehend, making it the most often used statistic for assessing classifier models. But not in every scenario accuracy score is to be considered the best metric to evaluate the model. In this article, we will discuss the reasons not to believe in the accuracy performance parameter completely. Following are the topics to be covered.
Let's read in all the data we have. Since all the region data share a primary key date, we can connect them with concat() in pandas and set the keys as the region names. I don't want the regions as the index, so we can reset the index and then rename some columns to get the data in the right shape. Let's first visualize our target class. It appears we have in our hands an imbalanced class, as the N label is dominating the rest of the classes.
In most binary classification problems we use the ROC Curve and ROC AUC score as measurements of how well the model separates the predictions of the two different classes. I explain this mechanism in another article, but the intuition is easy: if the model gives lower probability scores for the negative class, and higher scores for the positive class, we can say that this is a good model. Now here's the catch: we can also use the KS-2samp test to do that! The KS statistic for two samples is simply the highest distance between their two CDFs, so if we measure the distance between the positive and negative class distributions, we can have another metric to evaluate classifiers. There is a benefit for this approach: the ROC AUC score goes from 0.5 to 1.0, while KS statistics range from 0.0 to 1.0.
As we know, the output for classification problem is consists from two target variables, either 0 or 1; Yes or No; Positive or Negative; etc. and our model is trying to classify whether a specific data is 0 or 1; Yes or No; etc. The columns are representing the True Class, which means true or real label for the specific data. The rows are representing the Predicted Class, which means the prediction results derived from our model for the specific use case. True Positive (TP) TP is simply the count of data where the Predicted value is Positive and True value is Positive too. True Negative (TN) TN is simply the count of data where the Predicted value is Negative and True value is Negative too.
As AI-based systems increasingly impact many areas of our lives, auditing these systems for fairness is an increasingly high-stakes problem. Traditional group fairness metrics can miss discrimination against individuals and are difficult to apply after deployment. Counterfactual fairness describes an individualized notion of fairness but is even more challenging to evaluate after deployment. We present prediction sensitivity, an approach for continual audit of counterfactual fairness in deployed classifiers. Prediction sensitivity helps answer the question: would this prediction have been different, if this individual had belonged to a different demographic group -- for every prediction made by the deployed model. Prediction sensitivity can leverage correlations between protected status and other features and does not require protected status information at prediction time. Our empirical results demonstrate that prediction sensitivity is effective for detecting violations of counterfactual fairness.
Digitization is penetrating more and more areas of life. Tasks are increasingly being completed digitally, and are therefore not only fulfilled faster, more efficiently but also more purposefully and successfully. The rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence in recent years have played a major role in this, as they brought up many helpful approaches to build on. At the same time, the eyes, their movements, and the meaning of these movements are being progressively researched. The combination of these developments has led to exciting approaches. In this dissertation, I present some of these approaches which I worked on during my Ph.D. First, I provide insight into the development of models that use artificial intelligence to connect eye movements with visual expertise. This is demonstrated for two domains or rather groups of people: athletes in decision-making actions and surgeons in arthroscopic procedures. The resulting models can be considered as digital diagnostic models for automatic expertise recognition. Furthermore, I show approaches that investigate the transferability of eye movement patterns to different expertise domains and subsequently, important aspects of techniques for generalization. Finally, I address the temporal detection of confusion based on eye movement data. The results suggest the use of the resulting model as a clock signal for possible digital assistance options in the training of young professionals. An interesting aspect of my research is that I was able to draw on very valuable data from DFB youth elite athletes as well as on long-standing experts in arthroscopy. In particular, the work with the DFB data attracted the interest of radio and print media, namely DeutschlandFunk Nova and SWR DasDing. All resulting articles presented here have been published in internationally renowned journals or at conferences.
There are two general types of supervised machine learning approaches in their simplest form. First, you can have a regression problem, where you're trying to predict a continuous variable, such as the temperature or a stock price. The second is a classification problem where you want to predict a categorical variable such as pass/fail or spam/ham. Additionally, we can have binary classification problems that we'll cover here with only two outcomes and multi-class classification with more than two outcomes. We want to take several steps to prepare our data for Machine Learning.
Abstract--Classifier specific (CS) and classifier agnostic (CA) feature importance methods are widely used (often interchangeably) by prior studies to derive feature importance ranks from a defect classifier. However, different feature importance methods are likely to compute different feature importance ranks even for the same dataset and classifier. Hence such interchangeable use of feature importance methods can lead to conclusion instabilities unless there is a strong agreement among different methods. Therefore, in this paper, we evaluate the agreement between the feature importance ranks associated with the studied classifiers through a case study of 18 software projects and six commonly used classifiers. We find that: 1) The computed feature importance ranks by CA and CS methods do not always strongly agree with each other. Such findings raise concerns about the stability of conclusions across replicated studies. We further observe that the commonly used defect datasets are rife with feature interactions and these feature interactions impact the computed feature importance ranks of the CS methods (not the CA methods). We demonstrate that removing these feature interactions, even with simple methods like CFS improves agreement between the computed feature importance ranks of CA and CS methods. In light of our findings, we provide guidelines for stakeholders and practitioners when performing model interpretation and directions for future research, e.g., future research is needed to investigate the impact of advanced feature interaction removal methods on computed feature importance ranks of different CS methods. We note, however, that a CS method is not always readily available for Defect classifiers are widely used by many large software corporations a given classifier. Defect classifiers are commonly and deep neural networks do not have a widely accepted CS interpreted to uncover insights to improve software quality. Therefore it is the feature importance ranks of different classifiers is pivotal that these generated insights are reliable. Such CA methods measure the contribution of each feature a feature importance method to compute a ranking of feature towards a classifier's predictions. These measure the contribution of each feature by effecting changes to feature importance ranks reflect the order in which the studied that particular feature in the dataset and observing its impact on features contribute to the predictive capability of the studied the outcome. The primary advantage of CA methods is that they classifier .
For the last two decades, oversampling has been employed to overcome the challenge of learning from imbalanced datasets. Many approaches to solving this challenge have been offered in the literature. Oversampling, on the other hand, is a concern. That is, models trained on fictitious data may fail spectacularly when put to real-world problems. The fundamental difficulty with oversampling approaches is that, given a real-life population, the synthesized samples may not truly belong to the minority class. As a result, training a classifier on these samples while pretending they represent minority may result in incorrect predictions when the model is used in the real world. We analyzed a large number of oversampling methods in this paper and devised a new oversampling evaluation system based on hiding a number of majority examples and comparing them to those generated by the oversampling process. Based on our evaluation system, we ranked all these methods based on their incorrectly generated examples for comparison. Our experiments using more than 70 oversampling methods and three imbalanced real-world datasets reveal that all oversampling methods studied generate minority samples that are most likely to be majority. Given data and methods in hand, we argue that oversampling in its current forms and methodologies is unreliable for learning from class imbalanced data and should be avoided in real-world applications.
A growing body of work uses the paradigm of algorithmic fairness to frame the development of techniques to anticipate and proactively mitigate the introduction or exacerbation of health inequities that may follow from the use of model-guided decision-making. We evaluate the interplay between measures of model performance, fairness, and the expected utility of decision-making to offer practical recommendations for the operationalization of algorithmic fairness principles for the development and evaluation of predictive models in healthcare. We conduct an empirical case-study via development of models to estimate the ten-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to inform statin initiation in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. We demonstrate that approaches that incorporate fairness considerations into the model training objective typically do not improve model performance or confer greater net benefit for any of the studied patient populations compared to the use of standard learning paradigms followed by threshold selection concordant with patient preferences, evidence of intervention effectiveness, and model calibration. These results hold when the measured outcomes are not subject to differential measurement error across patient populations and threshold selection is unconstrained, regardless of whether differences in model performance metrics, such as in true and false positive error rates, are present. In closing, we argue for focusing model development efforts on developing calibrated models that predict outcomes well for all patient populations while emphasizing that such efforts are complementary to transparent reporting, participatory design, and reasoning about the impact of model-informed interventions in context.