Re: Kendall/Spearman rank correlation
- From: Cathy Laporte <cathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:52:16 EDT
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:03:31 EDT, Cathy Laporte
<cathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thank you for the suggestions. I will definitelylook up Conover's textbook.
the accuracy of an approximate sorting algorithm. By
I want to use one of the two measures to evaluate
approximate, I mean that it is an algorithm that
sorts data based on redundant, noisy measurements of
similarity between the different data points. I want
to compare the ordering output by the algorithm with
the ground truth order. I think that either
correlation (Spearman's or Kendall's) between the
true and inferred ranks should give me a good idea of
the algorithm's robustness.
Either one would allow you to compare several
algorithms.
That is exactly what I need to do. I am comparing my "robust" algorithm against a base-line algorithm which works perfectly in the noiseless case but whose performance degrades nastily with noise.
You have only one algorithm? You are left with an
unknown standard -- Correlations best measure
'association',
which you surely should have plenty of, and not
'deviations.'
What difference for 1.0 is going to be important?
(And who
are you trying to convince of it?)
Why not get a frequency distribution of the
deviations (plus and minus rank errors, or absolute
errors)
for your multiple trials? I think that will give you
a more persuasive argument about robustness.
Good point, though. I will give that some thought.
Thanks!
.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
- References:
- Re: Kendall/Spearman rank correlation
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Kendall/Spearman rank correlation
- Prev by Date: Re: K Nearest Neighbors in time series forecasting
- Next by Date: second-order curve fit uncertainty
- Previous by thread: Re: Kendall/Spearman rank correlation
- Next by thread: Re: Kendall/Spearman rank correlation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|