A computationally and cognitively plausible model of supervised and unsupervised learning

Author version made available in accordance with the publisher's policy. "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”The issue of chance correction has been discussed for many decades in the context of statistics, psychology and machine learning, with multiple measures being shown to have desirable properties, including various definitions of Kappa or Correlation, and the psychologically validated ΔP measures. In this paper, we discuss the relationships between these measures, showing that they form part of a single family of measures, and that using an appropriate measure can positively impact learning

Adabook and Multibook: adaptive boosting with chance correction

There has been considerable interest in boosting and bagging, including the combination of the adaptive techniques of AdaBoost with the random selection with replacement techniques of Bagging. At the same time there has been a revisiting of the way we evaluate, with chance-corrected measures like Kappa, Informedness, Correlation or ROC AUC being advocated. This leads to the question of whether learning algorithms can do better by optimizing an appropriate chance corrected measure. Indeed, it is possible for a weak learner to optimize Accuracy to the detriment of the more reaslistic chance-corrected measures, and when this happens the booster can give up too early. This phenomenon is known to occur with conventional Accuracy-based AdaBoost, and the MultiBoost algorithm has been developed to overcome such problems using restart techniques based on bagging. This paper thus complements the theoretical work showing the necessity of using chance-corrected measures for evaluation, with empirical work showing how use of a chance-corrected measure can improve boosting. We show that the early surrender problem occurs in MultiBoost too, in multiclass situations, so that chance-corrected AdaBook and Multibook can beat standard Multiboost or AdaBoost, and we further identify which chance-corrected measures to use when

The problem with Kappa

It is becoming clear that traditional evaluation measures used in Computational Linguistics (including Error Rates, Accuracy, Recall, Precision and F-measure) are of limited value for unbiased evaluation of systems, and are not meaningful for comparison of algorithms unless both the dataset and algorithm parameters are strictly controlled for skew (Prevalence and Bias). The use of techniques originally designed for other purposes, in particular Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve, plus variants of Kappa, have been proposed to fill the void. This paper aims to clear up some of the confusion relating to evaluation, by demonstrating that the usefulness of each evaluation method is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the distributions of the dataset and the underlying populations. The behaviour of a number of evaluation measures is compared under common assumptions. Deploying a system in a context which has the opposite skew from its validation set can be expected to approximately negate Fleiss Kappa and halve Cohen Kappa but leave Powers Kappa unchanged. For most performance evaluation purposes, the latter is thus most appropriate, whilst for comparison of behaviour, Matthews Correlation is recommended

Minors as miners: Modelling and evaluating ontological and linguistic learning

Gold Coas