Skip to main content
Log in

A New Performance Evaluation Metric for Classifiers: Polygon Area Metric

  • Published:
Journal of Classification Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Classifier performance assessment (CPA) is a challenging task for pattern recognition. In recent years, various CPA metrics have been developed to help assess the performance of classifiers. Although the classification accuracy (CA), which is the most popular metric in pattern recognition area, works well if the classes have equal number of samples, it fails to evaluate the recognition performance of each class when the classes have different number of samples. To overcome this problem, researchers have developed various metrics including sensitivity, specificity, area under curve, Jaccard index, Kappa, and F-measure except CA. Giving many evaluation metrics for assessing the performance of classifiers make large tables possible. Additionally, when comparing classifiers with each other, while a classifier might be more successful on a metric, it may have poor performance for the other metrics. Hence, such kinds of situations make it difficult to track results and compare classifiers. This study proposes a stable and profound knowledge criterion that allows the performance of a classifier to be evaluated with only a single metric called as polygon area metric (PAM). Thus, classifier performance can be easily evaluated without the need for several metrics. The stability and validity of the proposed metric were tested with the k-nearest neighbor, support vector machines, and linear discriminant analysis classifiers on a total of 7 different datasets, five of which were artificial. The results indicate that the proposed PAM method is simple but effective for evaluating classifier performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aydemir, O., & Kayikcioglu, T. (2011). Wavelet transform based classification of invasive brain computer interface data. Radioengineering, 20(1), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydemir, O., & Kayikcioglu, T. (2013). Comparing common machine learning classifiers in low-dimensional feature vectors for brain computer interface applications. International Journal of Innovative Computing Information and Control, 9(3), 1145–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, C., Ni, Y., Tan, G., Saunders, C. J., & Ashburner, J. (2011). Kernel regression for fMRI pattern prediction. NeuroImage, 56(2), 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, S. J., & Brereton, R. G. (2009). Comparison of performance of five common classifiers represented as boundary methods: Euclidean distance to centroids, linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, learning vector quantization and support vector machines, as dependent on data structure. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 95(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Framinan, J. M., Perez-Gonzalez, P., & Fernandez-Viagas, V. (2019). Deterministic assembly scheduling problems: a review and classification of concurrent-type scheduling models and solution procedures. European Journal of Operational Research, 273(2), 401–417.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. J., Cho, K. J., & Oh, S. (2017). Development of machine learning models for diagnosis of glaucoma. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal, T. N., Hinterberger, T., Widman, G., Schröder, M., Hill, N. J., Rosenstiel, W., Elger, C. E., Schölkopf, B., & Birbaumer, N. (2005). Methods towards invasive human brain computer interfaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 17, MA, Cambridge:MIT Press, 737–744.

  • Ohsaki, M., Wang, P., Matsuda, K., Katagiri, S., Watanabe, H., & Ralescu, A. (2017). Confusion-matrix-based kernel logistic regression for imbalanced data classification. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(9), 1806–1819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiferaw, H., Bewket, W., & Eckert, S. (2019). Performances of machine learning algorithms for mapping fractional cover of an invasive plant species in a dryland ecosystem. Ecology and Evolution, 9(5), 2562–2574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • William H. Wolberg W. H., Street W. N. and Mangasarian O. L., (1995) UCI machine learning repository. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Breast+Cancer+Wisconsin+(Diagnostic).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onder Aydemir.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aydemir, O. A New Performance Evaluation Metric for Classifiers: Polygon Area Metric. J Classif 38, 16–26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-020-09362-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-020-09362-5

Keywords

Navigation