Talk:Confusion matrix

message: I suggest this article should be merged at this address with Table of confusion. The issue is the same and there should be only one article in order to avoid confusion //end of lame joke//. --Ben  T/C  15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Just to futher confuse things, confusion matrices arnt soely used in AI (as this article would suggest). A confusion matric is also used in Earth Observation when validating thematic classifications.
----
Yes, I believe AI is too narrow in this discussion. I suggest "Pattern Recognition" is the actual context where confusion matrices makes sense. FJValverde 09:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Please add labels to the matrix which ones are the actual values and what are the predicted values. Reading the text it becomes clear, but please take note that the article about Receiver Operating Characteristic links to here and over there the confusion matrix is transposed (but labeled). Stevemiller 04:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Labeling of Matrix Columns/Rows 

message: We badly need clarification for the definition of producer's and user's accuracy, which is closely associated with the confusion matrix.  
Comment added by Ctzcheng (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: The line "Each column of the matrix represents the instances in a predicted class" does not correspond with the figures which seem to have the True Classes in rows and the Predicted Classes in columns. This seems a bit misleading..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.231.243 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: The paragraph that starts: "When a data set is unbalanced..." should probably be removed.  I believe this is more a general property of classification algorithms rather than a property of this visualization technique. BAxelrod (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove paragraph 

message: Isn't this the same as Contingency table? I understand that different fields have different jargon, but I still feel that the similarity should be acknowledged. 82.181.42.45 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I just asked the same question here: Talk:Contingency table#Contingency table vs confusion matrix pgr94 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I disagree. A confusion matrix can be considered a special kind of contingency table (between real and observed value), but I don't think they should be... confused. -- RFST (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contingency table? 

message: The introduction states that the columns are the predicted class and the rows are the actual class.  In the Example section this convention is reversed without acknowledgement.  In the Table of confusion section the originally stated convention is used.  I propose the introduction note that there are multiple conventions, but then a consistent convention is used within the article.  Doug Paul (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed conventions 

message: Normalization of confusion matrix should also be explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scls19fr (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normalization 

message: I would have expected the outcome of the confusion table to have 14 true negatives, because it is stated that 
these are correctly predicted non cats. So (3 dogs + 11 rabbits) which are correctly predicted non cats. However I can see the argument for just adding all the ((TP+FP+FN) - rest of instances). Because these are animals, that are not fn, fp or tp cats. 
Do we have some reference to a formula on how TN is defined more precisely?
(Jogoe12 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion Table and True Negatives 

message: Removed this
    Double left curly bracket   Confusion matrix terms|recall=   Double right curly bracket
from the article today since i have no idea what it is supposed to do, and it results in a mess at the beginning of the article - Right after the title and before 'condition positive(P)' on the page I see this garbage
    "Insert non-formatted text here{| class="wikitable" width=35% style="float:right;font-size:98%; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.25em; background:#f1f5fc;" |+     
    Terminology and derivations
    from a confusion matrix |- style="vertical-align:top;" |  "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkadoodle (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed one line of wrong markup at the top 

message: 83.83.238.65 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As all metrics are derived from the observed values FN, TP, TN and FP, there are very many ways of expressing one metric in terms the others. Priority is given to expressing derived metrics in terms of more basic ones, as showing them all would clutter the page. The reader can use a system of equations to recalculate the observed values from derived metrics if needed. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  add some formula: 

message: : I found conflicts in the page. The terminologies on the right (including the machine learning figure) said Type I error is underestimation whereas the below confusion table said the Type I error is overestimation. Which one is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.241.115 (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Type I error overestimation or underestimation? 

message: Fellow Wikipedians: I've proposed some changes to the formula infobox transcluded into this article, with the goal of trimming down its overpowering (if not excessive) width. My original message with some explanatory notes is at Template talk:Confusion matrix terms#Template_width, and you can see the revised template layout I've proposed by viewing its sandbox version.
There have been no responses over there in well over two months, and since the changes I'm proposing are significant enough to possibly be contentious, I wanted to invite any interested Wikipedians to discuss them over at the template's talk page. Thanks! FeRDNYC (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to transcluded formula template 

message: Dear collaborators,
I've recently read a paper about a General Performance Score for classification problems. It is indeed a generalized performance measure defined as the harmonic mean of the selected and desired classic performance measures (for example, recall, specificity, etc.). It is totally adaptable and the classic performance measures are a particular case of it. I have created the following draft to include it in wikipedia with the objective of including it later in the confusion matrix page and template:
Draft:General Performance Score (GPS): a general metric to evaluate classification problems
RanchoLancho (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the General Performance Score