Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Salmanpour, Mohammad R., Alizadeh, Morteza, Mousavi, Ghazal, Sadeghi, Saba, Amiri, Sajad, Oveisi, Mehrdad, Rahmim, Arman, Hacihaliloglu, Ilker
Format: Preprint
Published: 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12032
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866916646686294016
author Salmanpour, Mohammad R.
Alizadeh, Morteza
Mousavi, Ghazal
Sadeghi, Saba
Amiri, Sajad
Oveisi, Mehrdad
Rahmim, Arman
Hacihaliloglu, Ilker
author_facet Salmanpour, Mohammad R.
Alizadeh, Morteza
Mousavi, Ghazal
Sadeghi, Saba
Amiri, Sajad
Oveisi, Mehrdad
Rahmim, Arman
Hacihaliloglu, Ilker
contents This study evaluates metrics for tasks such as classification, regression, clustering, correlation analysis, statistical tests, segmentation, and image-to-image (I2I) translation. Metrics were compared across Python libraries, R packages, and Matlab functions to assess their consistency and highlight discrepancies. The findings underscore the need for a unified roadmap to standardize metrics, ensuring reliable and reproducible ML evaluations across platforms. This study examined a wide range of evaluation metrics across various tasks and found only some to be consistent across platforms, such as (i) Accuracy, Balanced Accuracy, Cohens Kappa, F-beta Score, MCC, Geometric Mean, AUC, and Log Loss in binary classification; (ii) Accuracy, Cohens Kappa, and F-beta Score in multi-class classification; (iii) MAE, MSE, RMSE, MAPE, Explained Variance, Median AE, MSLE, and Huber in regression; (iv) Davies-Bouldin Index and Calinski-Harabasz Index in clustering; (v) Pearson, Spearman, Kendall's Tau, Mutual Information, Distance Correlation, Percbend, Shepherd, and Partial Correlation in correlation analysis; (vi) Paired t-test, Chi-Square Test, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Shapiro-Wilk Test, Welchs t-test, and Bartlett's test in statistical tests; (vii) Accuracy, Precision, and Recall in 2D segmentation; (viii) Accuracy in 3D segmentation; (ix) MAE, MSE, RMSE, and R-Squared in 2D-I2I translation; and (x) MAE, MSE, and RMSE in 3D-I2I translation. Given observation of discrepancies in a number of metrics (e.g. precision, recall and F1 score in binary classification, WCSS in clustering, multiple statistical tests, and IoU in segmentation, amongst multiple metrics), this study concludes that ML evaluation metrics require standardization and recommends that future research use consistent metrics for different tasks to effectively compare ML techniques and solutions.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2411_12032
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Machine Learning Evaluation Metric Discrepancies across Programming Languages and Their Components: Need for Standardization
Salmanpour, Mohammad R.
Alizadeh, Morteza
Mousavi, Ghazal
Sadeghi, Saba
Amiri, Sajad
Oveisi, Mehrdad
Rahmim, Arman
Hacihaliloglu, Ilker
Machine Learning
Software Engineering
Computational Physics
This study evaluates metrics for tasks such as classification, regression, clustering, correlation analysis, statistical tests, segmentation, and image-to-image (I2I) translation. Metrics were compared across Python libraries, R packages, and Matlab functions to assess their consistency and highlight discrepancies. The findings underscore the need for a unified roadmap to standardize metrics, ensuring reliable and reproducible ML evaluations across platforms. This study examined a wide range of evaluation metrics across various tasks and found only some to be consistent across platforms, such as (i) Accuracy, Balanced Accuracy, Cohens Kappa, F-beta Score, MCC, Geometric Mean, AUC, and Log Loss in binary classification; (ii) Accuracy, Cohens Kappa, and F-beta Score in multi-class classification; (iii) MAE, MSE, RMSE, MAPE, Explained Variance, Median AE, MSLE, and Huber in regression; (iv) Davies-Bouldin Index and Calinski-Harabasz Index in clustering; (v) Pearson, Spearman, Kendall's Tau, Mutual Information, Distance Correlation, Percbend, Shepherd, and Partial Correlation in correlation analysis; (vi) Paired t-test, Chi-Square Test, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Shapiro-Wilk Test, Welchs t-test, and Bartlett's test in statistical tests; (vii) Accuracy, Precision, and Recall in 2D segmentation; (viii) Accuracy in 3D segmentation; (ix) MAE, MSE, RMSE, and R-Squared in 2D-I2I translation; and (x) MAE, MSE, and RMSE in 3D-I2I translation. Given observation of discrepancies in a number of metrics (e.g. precision, recall and F1 score in binary classification, WCSS in clustering, multiple statistical tests, and IoU in segmentation, amongst multiple metrics), this study concludes that ML evaluation metrics require standardization and recommends that future research use consistent metrics for different tasks to effectively compare ML techniques and solutions.
title Machine Learning Evaluation Metric Discrepancies across Programming Languages and Their Components: Need for Standardization
topic Machine Learning
Software Engineering
Computational Physics
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12032