Skip to content

DOC Added new scientific reference of MCC in the _classification.py page #18707

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

DOC Added new scientific reference of MCC in the _classification.py page #18707

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor

@davidechicco davidechicco commented Oct 29, 2020

Reference Issues/PRs

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

I only added the reference to my article on the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) webpage, thinking that it can be useful to the users.

Any other comments?

@davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor Author

davidechicco commented Nov 2, 2020

Dear scikit-learn developers,

I am proposing to include the reference to this article of mine about the Matthews correlation coefficient because it describes some mathematical properties of MCC, some mathematical relationships between MCC and other measures (F1 score and accuracy), and some use cases about how it works and what message it generates.
I think this information might be useful for the scikit-learn users who would like to know more about MCC.

I am available to provide additional information, of course.

Thanks for considering my pull request.

-- Davide

Base automatically changed from master to main January 22, 2021 10:53
@davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can someone let me know if my request can be considered? Thank you

Copy link
Member

@thomasjpfan thomasjpfan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the PR @davidechicco !

I do not think we have an "inclusion criterion" for references. Given the number of citations this paper has, I would be +1 with adding it.

(I also found the paper easy to read, nice work!)

@thomasjpfan thomasjpfan changed the title Added new scientific reference of MCC in the _classification.py page DOC Added new scientific reference of MCC in the _classification.py page Mar 17, 2021
@jnothman
Copy link
Member

jnothman commented Mar 17, 2021 via email

@davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we proceed with the pull request merge? Thank you

@jnothman
Copy link
Member

Did you have a response to my suggestion? In the user guide you would specifically note the conclusion of your work. The docstring references tend to pertain to the definition or scope of a metric, not the respective advantages.

@davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Did you have a response to my suggestion? In the user guide you would specifically note the conclusion of your work. The docstring references tend to pertain to the definition or scope of a metric, not the respective advantages.

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I checked the user guide and found no references to scientific articles. Do you refer to this document or to something else?

@thomasjpfan
Copy link
Member

I think most of the references in matthews_corrcoef should get moved to the user guide.

A good example of references for a metric is the DET User guide. You can place references for MCC in doc/modules/model_evaluation.rst in the section that discuss MCC.

@davidechicco
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think most of the references in matthews_corrcoef should get moved to the user guide.

A good example of references for a metric is the DET User guide. You can place references for MCC in doc/modules/model_evaluation.rst in the section that discuss MCC.

Thanks for the suggestion; I will try to do it. I will close this issue then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants