3 ms·
I really like the table of confusion as a way to look at this stuff. I find the terminology somewhat confusing and it's much easier for me to just look up the f
by vostok 2y ago
I really like the table of confusion as a way to look at this stuff. I find the terminology somewhat confusing and it's much easier for me to just look up the formulas.
That means 90% accuracy should mean (true_positive + true_negative)/(whole_population) == 90%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix
- diffeomorphism 2y agoSo a trivial test that always says "No" will have better accuracy? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/prostate-cancer/about/ke... > About 1 in 8 men will get diagnosed with that cancer, through their whole lifetime. So true_negative/whole_population>=87.5% at least (life time vs currently has cancer). Or am I misunderstanding the meaning?
- greenavocado 2y agoThis is why accuracy is useless for reasoning about detection of rare things.