Accuracy Performance Sample Clauses

Accuracy Performance. Table 1 presents the mean accuracy and the standard deviation over five runs of 10 fold cross-validation using C4.5 algorithm as the base classifier. The shaded boxes represent cases where the difference between CAP-Best-First-Kappa and the corresponding method is statistically significant with 95% confidence using t-test. A win-loss-tie summarization based on mean value and t test is attached at the bottom of the table. Generally Kappa measure slightly outperforms symmetrical uncertainty and GA search outperforms Best First search. Using adjusted Xxxxxxxx test the null hypothesis that all pruning methods perform the same over multiple data sets and the observed differences are merely random has been reject with FF (8, 232) =10.05, p < 0.001. We proceed with a post-hoc Bonferroni-Xxxx test using CAP-Best-First-Kappa as the controlled method. We concluded that all variations of CAP method perform almost the same. Still CAP-Best-First-Kappa significantly outperforms CAP-Best-First-Symmetrical-Uncertainty with z= 2.26, p<0.05. The accuracy of the proposed pruned ensemble is similar to the accuracy of the original ensemble (no pruning). CAP-Best-First-Kappa significantly outperforms Kappa Ranking with z=4.14, p<0.001. Moreover CAP-GA-Kappa significantly outperforms GASEN-b with z=2.32, p<0.01. This indicates that the using collective merit measure is more accurate than using the wrapper approach when GA search strategy is used. This conclusion is not expected, because wrapper approach is generally considered to be slow but accurate mean to direct the search process. Table 2 presents the mean accuracy and the standard deviation over five runs of 10 fold cross-validation using Decision Xxxxx algorithm as the base classifier. The shaded boxes represent cases where the difference between CAP-Best-First-Kappa and the corresponding method is statistically significant with 95% confidence using t-test. A win-loss-tie summarization based on mean value and t test is attached at the bottom of the table. All pruning methods slightly reduce the accuracy performance when compared to the No-Pruning results. Nevertheless CAP-Best-First-Kappa significantly outperforms No-Pruning in the Wine dataset. Generally Kappa measure slightly outperforms symmetrical uncertainty. Using adjusted Xxxxxxxx test the null hypothesis that all pruning methods perform the same over multiple data sets and the observed differences are merely random has been reject with FF (8, 232) = 7.168, p < 0.00...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Accuracy Performance

  • TIMELY PERFORMANCE (a) SELLER's timely performance is a critical element of this Contract.

  • Product Performance Contractor hereby warrants and represents that the Products acquired by the Authorized User under the terms and conditions of this Contract conform to the specifications, performance standards and documentation in the Authorized User Agreement., and the documentation fully describes the proper procedure for using the Products. Contractor further warrants and represents that if the Products acquired by the Authorized User pursuant to an Authorized User Agreement under this Contract include software application development, software application customization, software programming, software integration or similar items (“Software Deliverables”) then such Software Deliverables shall be free from defects in material and workmanship and conform with all requirements of the Contract and Authorized User Agreement for the warranty period of one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the completed project (“Project warranty period”). Contractor also warrants that the Products, in the form provided to the Authorized User, do not infringe any copyright, trademark, trade secret or other right of any third party.

  • EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out -

  • CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE Agencies shall report any vendor failure to perform according to the requirements of this contract on Complaint to Vendor, form PUR 7017. Should the vendor fail to correct the problem within a prescribed period of time, then form PUR 7029, Request for Assistance, is to be filed with this office.

  • Good Faith Performance Each Party shall act in good faith in its performance under this Agreement and, in each case in which a Party’s consent or agreement is required or requested hereunder, such Party shall not unreasonably withhold or delay such consent or agreement.

  • Excused Performance 6.1 Notwithstanding the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event, in which case Clause 17 will govern, BT will not be liable for any failure or delay to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement (including any of its obligations to meet any Service Levels) to the extent that BT’s failure or delay in performing arises as a result of:

  • Service Performance All Services provided by the Agency shall be performed in a diligent, safe, courteous, and timely manner in accordance with this Contract and the Associated federal requirements.

  • Work Performance All work in performance of this Lease shall be done by skilled workers or mechanics and shall be acceptable to the RECO. The RECO may reject the Lessor’s workers 1) if such are unlicensed, unskilled, or otherwise incompetent, or 2) if such have demonstrated a history of either untimely or otherwise unacceptable performance in connection with work carried out in conjunction with either this contract or other Government or private contracts.

  • Timeliness of Performance Contractor must provide the Services and Deliverables within the term and within the time limits required under this Contract, pursuant to Detailed Specifications or as specified in the applicable Task Order or Purchase Order. Further, Contractor acknowledges that TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE and that the failure of Contractor to comply with the time limits may result in economic or other losses to the City. Neither Contractor nor its agents, employees or Subcontractors are entitled to any damages from the City, nor is any party entitled to be reimbursed by the City, for damages, charges or other losses or expenses incurred by Contractor by reason of delays or hindrances in the performance of the Services, whether or not caused by the City.

  • Continuing Performance Each party is required to continue to perform its obligations under this contract pending final resolution of any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract, unless to do so would be impossible or impracticable under the circumstances.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.