A New Typology Design of Performance Metrics to Measure Errors in Machine Learning Regression Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze various performance metrics and approaches to their classification. The main goal of the study was to develop a new typology that will help to advance knowledge of metrics and facilitate their use in machine learning regression algorithms Background: Performance metrics (error measures) are vital components of the evaluation frameworks in various fields. A performance metric can be defined as a logical and mathematical construct designed to measure how close are the actual results from what has been expected or predicted. A vast variety of performance metrics have been described in academic literature. The most commonly mentioned metrics in research studies are Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), etc. Knowledge about metrics properties needs to be systematized to simplify the design and use of the metrics. Methodology: A qualitative study was conducted to achieve the objectives of identifying related peer-reviewed research studies, literature reviews, critical thinking and inductive reasoning. Contribution: The main contribution of this paper is in ordering knowledge of performance metrics and enhancing understanding of their structure and properties by proposing a new typology, generic primary metrics mathematical formula and a visualization chart Findings: Based on the analysis of the structure of numerous performance metrics, we proposed a framework of metrics which includes four (4) categories: primary metrics, extended metrics, composite metrics, and hybrid sets of metrics. The paper identified three (3) key components (dimensions) that determine the structure and properties of primary metrics: method of determining point distance, method of normalization, method of aggregation of point distances over a data set. For each component, implementation options have been identified. The suggested new typology has been shown to cover a total of over 40 commonly used primary metrics Recommendations for Practitioners: Presented findings can be used to facilitate teaching performance metrics to university students and expedite metrics selection and implementation processes for practitioners Recommendation for Researchers: By using the proposed typology, researchers can streamline development of new metrics with predetermined properties Impact on Society: The outcomes of this study could be used for improving evaluation results in machine learning regression, forecasting and prognostics with direct or indirect positive impacts on innovation and productivity in a societal sense Future Research: Future research is needed to examine the properties of the extended metrics, composite metrics, and hybrid sets of metrics. Empirical study of the metrics is needed using R Studio or Azure Machine Learning Studio, to find associations between the properties of primary metrics and their “numerical” behavior in a wide spectrum of data characteristics and business or research requirements
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".