Cross entropy and log likelihood ratio cost as performance measures for multi-conclusion categorical outcomes scales.

Eric M Warren, John C Handley, H David Sheets
{"title":"Cross entropy and log likelihood ratio cost as performance measures for multi-conclusion categorical outcomes scales.","authors":"Eric M Warren, John C Handley, H David Sheets","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an \"error rate\". We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.</p>","PeriodicalId":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an "error rate". We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.

交叉熵和对数似然比成本作为多结论分类结果量表的性能度量。
法医报告中的不确定类别在许多情况下是适当的反应,但它在估计“错误率”方面提出了挑战。我们讨论了与交叉熵相关的一类信息论度量的使用,作为一组替代度量,允许使用多类别报告量表对结果进行性能评估。本文展示了这类性能指标,特别是对数似然比成本,它已经在似然比取证报告方法和机器学习社区中使用,可以很容易地适应于广泛使用的多类别结论量表。这些指标上的贝叶斯可信区间可用数值方法估计。展示了这些度量对已发布的测试结果的应用。使用这些测试结果证明,将熟练程度测试中使用的类别数量从五个或六个减少到三个会增加交叉熵,这表明类别数量越多是合理的,因为它们增加了与基本真理的一致程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信