Evaluating ML Classifiers Clause Samples

Evaluating ML Classifiers. It is necessary to perform assessments of the quality of the predictions that an ML model produces. for this purpose, a validation set and a test set containing input samples from the same distribution as the training data are utilized. During the development phase, the model’s performance is assessed by having it produce predictions for samples from the validation set. If the model’s performance falls below the intended or anticipated level, the hyperparameters and configuration are adjusted, and the model is re-evaluated on the validation set as part of an ongoing cycle of development and improvement. Therefore, the model is tuned based on its performance on this data. Once the model’s performance on the validation set reaches the desired level, a final assessment of it is conducted using the completely unseen test set prior to its deployment. This approach is intended to limit overfitting, which occurs when a model is overtuned on local data, preventing it from generalizing to unseen samples. This means that it performs well under development but inadequately against unseen samples in the wild. With a completely independent test set, the model’s performance can be assessed on unseen samples that were not used to tailor its performance during its construction, therefore avoiding overfitting. To facilitate the examination and comparison of models, metrics that are easier to interpret are typically employed. A core metric is accuracy, which measures the proportion of correct predictions. In the malware detection domain, this is a measure of the proportion of predictions that match the true label (e.g., benign or malware). However, it is not appropriate to rely only on a single metric, as the binary classification problem of malware detection is multifaceted [175]. As the possible predictions in binary classification tasks are either positive or negative, the classifier’s predictions can only be correct (therefore, true positives (TP) and true negatives (TN)), or erroneous (therefore, false positives (fP) and false negatives (fN)). These metrics allow for the development of the true positive rate (i.e., the proportion of samples that were correctly predicted as positive) and the false positive rate (i.e., the proportion of samples that were incorrectly predicted as positive). Within the malware detection domain in particular, fPR must remain low [90, 202, 229, 125] lest a system be deployed that incorrectly (and frustratingly) flags legitimate queries and i...
View Source

Related to Evaluating ML Classifiers

  • CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACADEMY The characteristics of the Academy set down in Section 1(6) of the Academies Act 2010, are that:

  • New Job Classifications When a new classification (which is covered by the terms of this collective agreement) is established by the Hospital, the Hospital shall determine the rate of pay for such new classification and notify the local Union of the same. If the local Union challenges the rate, it shall have the right to request a meeting with the Hospital to endeavour to negotiate a mutually satisfactory rate. Such request will be made within ten (10) days after the receipt of notice from the Hospital of such new occupational classification and rate. Any change mutually agreed to resulting from such meeting shall be retroactive to the date that notice of the new rate was given by the Hospital. If the parties are unable to agree, the dispute concerning the new rate may be submitted to arbitration as provided in the agreement within fifteen (15) days of such meeting. The decision of the arbitrator (or board of arbitration as the case may be) shall be based on the relationship established by comparison with the rates for other classifications in the bargaining unit having regard to the requirements of such classification. When the Hospital makes a substantial change in the job content of an existing classification which in reality causes such classification to become a new classification, the Hospital agrees to meet with the Union if requested to permit the Union to make representation with respect to the appropriate rate of pay. If the matter is not resolved following the meeting with the Union, the matter may be referred to arbitration as provided in the agreement within fifteen (15) days of such meeting. The decision of the arbitrator (or board of arbitration as the case may be) shall be based on the relationship established by comparison with the rates for other classifications in the bargaining unit having regard to the requirements of such classifications. The parties further agree that any change mutually agreed to or awarded as a result of arbitration shall be retroactive only to the date that the Union raised the issue with the Hospital. The parties further agree that the above process as provided herein shall constitute the process for Pay Equity Maintenance as required by the Pay Equity Act.

  • JOB CLASSIFICATIONS 32.01 Employees holding positions which fall within the Bargaining Unit shall be provided with a job description upon written or email request. 32.02 New job classifications properly included in this Collective Agreement may be established by the Employer during the term of the Collective Agreement. Basic hourly rates of pay for such new job classifications shall be negotiated with the Union. If negotiations fail to produce an agreement within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of written notice from the Employer to the Union regarding the new job classification, then the basic hourly rates of pay may be settled through arbitration in accordance with clause 14.04(d).

  • SPECIALIZED JOB CLASSES Where there is a particular specialized job class in which the pay rate is below the local market value assessment of that job class, the parties may use existing means under the collective agreement to adjust compensation for that job class.

  • FICO Scores Each Mortgage Loan has a non-zero FICO score;