Cited by 212Machine Learning and Data ClassificationImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesData Mining and Machine Learning Applications

100% Classification Accuracy Considered Harmful: The Normalized Information Transfer Factor Explains the Accuracy Paradox

Open access
Valverde-Albacete, Francisco J., Peláez-Moreno, Carmen·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The most widely spread measure of performance, accuracy, suffers from a paradox: predictive models with a given level of accuracy may have greater predictive power than models with higher accuracy. Despite optimizing classification error rate, high accuracy models may fail to capture crucial information transfer in the classification task. We present evidence of this behavior by means of a combinatorial analysis where every possible contingency matrix of 2, 3 and 4 classes classifiers are depicted on the entropy triangle, a more reliable information-theoretic tool for classification assessment. Motivated by this, we develop from first principles a measure of classification performance that takes into consideration the information learned by classifiers. We are then able to obtain the entropy-modulated accuracy (EMA), a pessimistic estimate of the expected accuracy with the influence of the input distribution factored out, and the normalized information transfer factor (NIT), a measure of how efficient is the transmission of information from the input to the output set of classes. The EMA is a more natural measure of classification performance than accuracy when the heuristic to maximize is the transfer of information through the classifier instead of classification error count. The NIT factor measures the effectiveness of the learning process in classifiers and also makes it harder for them to "cheat" using techniques like specialization, while also promoting the interpretability of results. Their use is demonstrated in a mind reading task competition that aims at decoding the identity of a video stimulus based on magnetoencephalography recordings. We show how the EMA and the NIT factor reject rankings based in accuracy, choosing more meaningful and interpretable classifiers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0084217

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Traditional ML classification metrics propagate underlying biases, ignore the trustworthiness of negative instances, and do not take into account chance-level performance.

    “These traditional metrics, however, propagate the underlying biases, ignore the trustworthiness of negative instances and do not take into account the chance-level performance [79,81].”

    From A Survey of Underwater Acoustic Data Classification Methods Using Deep Learning for Shoreline Surveillance (2022) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) explains that accuracy can favor a majority-class classifier on imbalanced data, and Results > Two performance measures based on perplexity discusses the accuracy of a clueless classifier. These passages support concerns about class bias and chance performance, but the paper does not establish that traditional metrics generally ignore the trustworthiness of negative instances. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valverde-Albacete, F. J., & Peláez-Moreno, C.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (ES)
  • Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
Corresponding author
Valverde-Albacete, Francisco J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-01-10
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e84217
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015363484
Cited by
212
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • e-Archivo (Carlos III University of Madrid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Commission (288024)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
classification performance measures, contingency tables, information transmission, classifier evaluation, interpretability, theory of mind, magnetoencephalography, classification error rate
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Models, Theoretical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review