I posted several articles explaining how precision and recall can be calculated, where F-Score is the equally weighted harmonic mean of them. I was wondering- how to calculate the average precision, recall and harmonic mean of them of a system if the system is applied to several sets of data.

Tricky, but I found this very interesting. There are two methods by which you can get such average statistic of information retrieval and classification.

1. Micro-average Method

In Micro-average method, you sum up the individual true positives, false positives, and false negatives of the system for different sets and the apply them to get the statistics. For example, for a set of data, the system's

True positive (TP1)= 12

False positive (FP1)=9

False negative (FN1)=3

Then precision (P1) and recall (R1) will be 57.14 and 80

and for a different set of data, the system's

True positive (TP2)= 50

False positive (FP2)=23

False negative (FN2)=9

Then precision (P2) and recall (R2) will be 68.49 and 84.75

Now, the average precision and recall of the system using the Micro-average method is

Micro-average of precision = (TP1+TP2)/(TP1+TP2+FP1+FP2) = (12+50)/(12+50+9+23) = 65.96

Micro-average of recall = (TP1+TP2)/(TP1+TP2+FN1+FN2) = (12+50)/(12+50+3+9) = 83.78

The Micro-average F-Score will be simply the harmonic mean of these two figures.

2. Macro-average Method

The method is straight forward. Just take the average of the precision and recall of the system on different sets. For example, the macro-average precision and recall of the system for the given example is

Macro-average precision = (P1+P2)/2 = (57.14+68.49)/2 = 62.82

Macro-average recall = (R1+R2)/2 = (80+84.75)/2 = 82.25

The Macro-average F-Score will be simply the harmonic mean of these two figures.

Suitability

Macro-average method can be used when you want to know how the system performs overall across the sets of data. You should not come up with any specific decision with this average.

On the other hand, micro-average can be a useful measure when your dataset varies in size.

Thanks for the article, just a minor typo: second to last paragraph: Micro rather than macro.

ReplyDeleteThanks a lot, Yahya. I corrected it. But the typo is in the last paragraph. If your dataset varies in size, micro-average is the useful tool.

Deletehi, thank you for the article, please i have a general question related to learning algorithms. I found this expression in an article : The training data for the SVM classi ers are highly unbalanced as the proportion of positive training web pages ranges from 2% to 18%.

DeleteWhat do we mean by unbalanced data? and by positive/negative training?

ReplyDelete

thanks!

ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.

ReplyDeleteI think there's a problem with your macro-average precision calculation. the denominator should be the sum of true positives and false positives. The micro average for precision and recall are the same. See here:

ReplyDeletehttp://metaoptimize.com/qa/questions/8284/does-precision-equal-to-recall-for-micro-averaging

@Pallika. The scenarios are different. In my case, one classifier is applied on two different datasets. The number of instances are different in two datasets. But the example you provided is classifier performance for three different class labels. So the sum of positive and negative is always 27. The two macro and micro evaluation is different.

ReplyDeleteHi..Thank you for the article. I did some exparimentation on Text classification which consists 7 (labled documents prepared on my own)ctegories of documents.I did too much stemming and i got average precision 57%, micro precision=macro precision=1,micro recall=macro recall=0.please suggests me something to improve results(like bad training set,light stemming, threshold value and threshold step size modification, k if classifier is knn,how to improve recall for better F1 score).

ReplyDeleteThanks.

Good article.... if you explain what is micro and macro average in 3 lines it will be more hepful for readers...

ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.

ReplyDelete