Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.
Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skillsβperfect for learners of all ages.
Enroll to start learning
Youβve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take mock test.
Listen to a student-teacher conversation explaining the topic in a relatable way.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
Today, we're discussing accuracy in model evaluation. Accuracy is crucial as it gives us an initial gauge of how well our model is doing.
What exactly is accuracy, and how do we calculate it?
Great question! Accuracy is defined as the ratio of correctly predicted observations to the total observations. The formula is Accuracy = (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN).
So, TP and TN are for correct predictions, right? What about FP and FN?
Exactly! TP stands for True Positives and TN for True Negatives. FP is False Positives and FN is False Negatives, which capture where our model got it wrong.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
While accuracy is important, it can sometimes give a false sense of security, especially with imbalanced datasets. Can anyone think of an example?
What if 95% of students pass and only 5% fail? If we predicted everyone passes, our accuracy would still be 95%!
Exactly! That's why we must be cautious and use additional metrics to evaluate our models effectively.
Are there suggested metrics we should use together with accuracy?
Yes! Combining accuracy with precision, recall, and F1 score will give you a more comprehensive view of your modelβs performance.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
Let's take a look at how to implement accuracy in Python. Using the `accuracy_score` function from `sklearn`, we can easily compute it.
Can you show us an example, please?
"Sure! Here's a simple code snippet:
Read a summary of the section's main ideas. Choose from Basic, Medium, or Detailed.
In model evaluation, accuracy plays a critical role by indicating the proportion of true predictions (both true positives and true negatives) relative to all predictions. However, caution is necessary as accuracy can be misleading, particularly in the context of imbalanced datasets.
Accuracy is a fundamental metric used to evaluate the performance of classification models. Defined as the ratio of correctly predicted observations to the total number of observations, accuracy can provide a quick overview of a model's effectiveness. The formula for calculating accuracy is:
$$\text{Accuracy} = \frac{TP + TN}{TP + TN + FP + FN}$$
Where:
- TP (True Positives): Correctly predicted positive cases
- TN (True Negatives): Correctly predicted negative cases
- FP (False Positives): Incorrectly predicted as positive
- FN (False Negatives): Incorrectly predicted as negative
Despite its simplicity, accuracy can be misleadingβespecially in imbalanced datasets. For example, if 95% of a population passes an exam, a model that predicts all instances as 'pass' would achieve a 95% accuracy rate, misleadingly suggesting high performance while it fails to identify any failures. Therefore, while accuracy is a valuable metric, it is crucial to use it alongside other metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score to gain a comprehensive understanding of model performance.
Dive deep into the subject with an immersive audiobook experience.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
π Definition:
Accuracy is the ratio of correctly predicted observations to the total observations.
Accuracy = \( \frac{TP + TN}{TP + TN + FP + FN} \)
Accuracy measures how often the model makes correct predictions. It is calculated by dividing the number of correct predictions (both true positives and true negatives) by the total number of predictions made. This formula, \( \frac{TP + TN}{TP + TN + FP + FN} \), gives us a single number that represents the model's performance across all classes.
Imagine you are a teacher grading a class of 100 students on a test. If 90 students pass (correctly predicted positives) and 5 students fail but were correctly identified (correctly predicted negatives), your accuracy is calculated by adding those together (95) and dividing by the total number of students (100). This would give you an accuracy of 95%, which might sound great, but it's essential to dig deeper.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Python Code:
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
accuracy = accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred)
print("Accuracy:", accuracy)
This Python code snippet shows how to calculate the accuracy of a model in practice using the accuracy_score
function from the sklearn.metrics
module. Here, y_true
represents the actual labels, and y_pred
represents the predicted labels from the model. The accuracy_score
function processes the two lists and returns the accuracy, which is printed out.
Think of this code as a recipe. Just as you need to gather your ingredients (y_true and y_pred) and follow steps to bake a cake, running this code combines your actual and predicted data to produce a number that tells you how 'sweet' or successful your model is.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
β Warning:
Accuracy can be misleading in imbalanced datasets.
For example, if 95% of students pass and 5% fail, predicting all as "pass" gives 95% accuracy, but fails to detect the ones who actually fail.
This warning highlights a critical point: accuracy alone might not tell the full story, especially in situations where one class significantly outnumbers the other (i.e., imbalanced datasets). If a model predicts every student as passing when 95% pass and only 5% fail, it will achieve high accuracy but is essentially useless as it fails to identify the few students who are failing.
Consider a scenario where a fire alarm is programmed to only go off if there is a massive fire. If it ignores small fires, it might seem 'accurate' in its operation if it only alarms when the large fire is present, but ultimately it is dangerous, as it fails to alert for early warning signs. This highlights the importance of also checking other metrics.
Learn essential terms and foundational ideas that form the basis of the topic.
Key Concepts
Accuracy: The proportion of correct predictions in a model.
True Positives (TP): Correctly identified positive instances.
True Negatives (TN): Correctly identified negative instances.
False Positives (FP): Incorrectly identified positive instances.
False Negatives (FN): Incorrectly identified negative instances.
See how the concepts apply in real-world scenarios to understand their practical implications.
In a dataset where 100 students took an exam and 90 passed, an accuracy score of 90% would mean a high level of correct predictions. However, if all students are predicted to pass, the accuracy remains 90% with zero recognition of the failing students.
In a medical diagnosis scenario where 100 individuals are tested for a disease, if 95 are healthy and 5 are sick, claiming accuracy of 95% by predicting everyone as healthy would overlook the actual sick cases.
Use mnemonics, acronyms, or visual cues to help remember key information more easily.
Accuracy's what you see, correct predictions set you free. Count the true, both pos and neg, in all cases, take the leg.
Imagine a school with 95 students passing and only 5 failing. A predictive model that says 'all pass' gets 95% accuracy, but in reality, it misses the 5 who truly fail.
To remember accuracy, think of the acronym 'TPTN': True Positives + True Negatives mean success.
Review key concepts with flashcards.
Review the Definitions for terms.
Term: Accuracy
Definition:
The ratio of correctly predicted observations to the total observations in a model.
Term: True Positives (TP)
Definition:
Cases that are correctly predicted to be positive.
Term: True Negatives (TN)
Definition:
Cases that are correctly predicted to be negative.
Term: False Positives (FP)
Definition:
Cases that are incorrectly predicted as positive.
Term: False Negatives (FN)
Definition:
Cases that are incorrectly predicted as negative.