In the field of machine learning and specifically the problem of statistical classification, a confusion matrix, also known as an error matrix, is a specific table layout that allows visualization of the performance of an algorithm, typically a supervised learning one (in unsupervised learning it is usually called a matching matrix). Each row of the matrix represents the instances in a predicted class while each column represents the instances in an actual class (or vice versa). The name stems from the fact that it makes it easy to see if the system is confusing two classes (i.e. commonly mislabeling one as another).
It is a special kind of contingency table, with two dimensions ("actual" and "predicted"), and identical sets of "classes" in both dimensions (each combination of dimension and class is a variable in the contingency table).
If a classification system has been trained to distinguish between cats and dogs, a confusion matrix will summarize the results of testing the algorithm for further inspection. Assuming a sample of 13 animals — 8 cats and 5 dogs — the resulting confusion matrix could look like the table below:
In this confusion matrix, of the 8 actual cats, the system predicted that three were dogs, and of the five dogs, it predicted that two were cats. All correct predictions are located in the diagonal of the table (highlighted in bold), so it is easy to visually inspect the table for prediction errors, as they will be represented by values outside the diagonal.
Table of confusion
In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix), is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of false positives, false negatives, true positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than mere proportion of correct classifications (accuracy). Accuracy is not a reliable metric for the real performance of a classifier, because it will yield misleading results if the data set is unbalanced (that is, when the numbers of observations in different classes vary greatly). For example, if there were 95 cats and only 5 dogs in the data, a particular classifier might classify all the observations as cats. The overall accuracy would be 95%, but in more detail the classifier would have a 100% recognition rate (sensitivity) for the cat class but a 0% recognition rate for the dog class. F1 score is even more unreliable in such cases, and here would yield over 97.4%, whereas informedness removes such bias and yields 0 as the probability of an informed decision for any form of guessing (here always guessing cat).
Assuming the confusion matrix above, its corresponding table of confusion, for the cat class, would be:
|Cat||5 True Positives||2 False Positives|
|Non-cat||3 False Negatives||3 True Negatives|
The final table of confusion would contain the average values for all classes combined.
Let us define an experiment from P positive instances and N negative instances for some condition. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 confusion matrix, as follows:
|Total population||Condition positive||Condition negative||Prevalence = Σ Condition positive/||Accuracy (ACC) = Σ True positive + Σ True negative/|
|True positive||False positive,
Type I error
|Positive predictive value (PPV), Precision = Σ True positive/||False discovery rate (FDR) = Σ False positive/|
Type II error
|True negative||False omission rate (FOR) = Σ False negative/||Negative predictive value (NPV) = Σ True negative/|
|True positive rate (TPR), Recall, Sensitivity, probability of detection, Power = Σ True positive/||False positive rate (FPR), Fall-out, probability of false alarm = Σ False positive/||Positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = TPR/||Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) = LR+/||F1 score = 2 · Precision · Recall/|
|False negative rate (FNR), Miss rate = Σ False negative/||Specificity (SPC), Selectivity, True negative rate (TNR) = Σ True negative/||Negative likelihood ratio (LR−) = FNR/|
- Fawcett, Tom (2006). "An Introduction to ROC Analysis" (PDF). Pattern Recognition Letters. 27 (8): 861–874. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010.
- Powers, David M W (2011). "Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness & Correlation" (PDF). Journal of Machine Learning Technologies. 2 (1): 37–63.
- Ting, Kai Ming (2011). Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-30164-8.
- Brooks, Harold; Brown, Barb; Ebert, Beth; Ferro, Chris; Jolliffe, Ian; Koh, Tieh-Yong; Roebber, Paul; Stephenson, David (2015-01-26). "WWRP/WGNE Joint Working Group on Forecast Verification Research". Collaboration for Australian Weather and Climate Research. World Meteorological Organisation. Retrieved 2019-07-17.
- Stehman, Stephen V. (1997). "Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy". Remote Sensing of Environment. 62 (1): 77–89. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(97)00083-7.