In machine learning, manifold regularization is a technique for using the shape of a dataset to constrain the functions that should be learned on that dataset. In many machine learning problems, the data to be learned do not cover the entire input space. For example, a facial recognition system may not need to classify any possible image, but only the subset of images that contain faces. The technique of manifold learning assumes that the relevant subset of data comes from a manifold, a mathematical structure with useful properties. The technique also assumes that the function to be learned is smooth: data with different labels are not likely to be close together, and so the labeling function should not change quickly in areas where there are likely to be many data points. Because of this assumption, a manifold regularization algorithm can use unlabeled data to inform where the learned function is allowed to change quickly and where it is not, using an extension of the technique of Tikhonov regularization. Manifold regularization algorithms can extend supervised learning algorithms in semi-supervised learning and transductive learning settings, where unlabeled data are available. The technique has been used for applications including medical imaging, geographical imaging, and object recognition. == Manifold regularizer == === Motivation === Manifold regularization is a type of regularization, a family of techniques that reduces overfitting and ensures that a problem is well-posed by penalizing complex solutions. In particular, manifold regularization extends the technique of Tikhonov regularization as applied to Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs). Under standard Tikhonov regularization on RKHSs, a learning algorithm attempts to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} from among a hypothesis space of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . The hypothesis space is an RKHS, meaning that it is associated with a kernel K {\displaystyle K} , and so every candidate function f {\displaystyle f} has a norm ‖ f ‖ K {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{K}} , which represents the complexity of the candidate function in the hypothesis space. When the algorithm considers a candidate function, it takes its norm into account in order to penalize complex functions. Formally, given a set of labeled training data ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x ℓ , y ℓ ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{\ell },y_{\ell })} with x i ∈ X , y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X,y_{i}\in Y} and a loss function V {\displaystyle V} , a learning algorithm using Tikhonov regularization will attempt to solve the expression arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ K 2 {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a hyperparameter that controls how much the algorithm will prefer simpler functions over functions that fit the data better. Manifold regularization adds a second regularization term, the intrinsic regularizer, to the ambient regularizer used in standard Tikhonov regularization. Under the manifold assumption in machine learning, the data in question do not come from the entire input space X {\displaystyle X} , but instead from a nonlinear manifold M ⊂ X {\displaystyle M\subset X} . The geometry of this manifold, the intrinsic space, is used to determine the regularization norm. === Laplacian norm === There are many possible choices for the intrinsic regularizer ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} . Many natural choices involve the gradient on the manifold ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} , which can provide a measure of how smooth a target function is. A smooth function should change slowly where the input data are dense; that is, the gradient ∇ M f ( x ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}f(x)} should be small where the marginal probability density P X ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} , the probability density of a randomly drawn data point appearing at x {\displaystyle x} , is large. This gives one appropriate choice for the intrinsic regularizer: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = ∫ x ∈ M ‖ ∇ M f ( x ) ‖ 2 d P X ( x ) {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}=\int _{x\in M}\left\|\nabla _{M}f(x)\right\|^{2}\,d{\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} In practice, this norm cannot be computed directly because the marginal distribution P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is unknown, but it can be estimated from the provided data. === Graph-based approach of the Laplacian norm === When the distances between input points are interpreted as a graph, then the Laplacian matrix of the graph can help to estimate the marginal distribution. Suppose that the input data include ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } labeled examples (pairs of an input x {\displaystyle x} and a label y {\displaystyle y} ) and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples (inputs without associated labels). Define W {\displaystyle W} to be a matrix of edge weights for a graph, where W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} is a similarity built from distance measure between the data points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} (so that more close implies higher W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} ). Define D {\displaystyle D} to be a diagonal matrix with D i i = ∑ j = 1 ℓ + u W i j {\displaystyle D_{ii}=\sum _{j=1}^{\ell +u}W_{ij}} and L {\displaystyle L} to be the Laplacian matrix D − W {\displaystyle D-W} . Then, as the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, L {\displaystyle L} converges to the Laplace–Beltrami operator Δ M {\displaystyle \Delta _{M}} , which is the divergence of the gradient ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} . Then, if f {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} } is a vector of the values of f {\displaystyle f} at the data, f = [ f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x l + u ) ] T {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} =[f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{l+u})]^{\mathrm {T} }} , the intrinsic norm can be estimated: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = 1 ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}={\frac {1}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, this empirical definition of ‖ f ‖ I 2 {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}} converges to the definition when P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is known. === Solving the regularization problem with graph-based approach === Using the weights γ A {\displaystyle \gamma _{A}} and γ I {\displaystyle \gamma _{I}} for the ambient and intrinsic regularizers, the final expression to be solved becomes: arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ A ‖ f ‖ K 2 + γ I ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma _{A}\left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}+{\frac {\gamma _{I}}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As with other kernel methods, H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} may be an infinite-dimensional space, so if the regularization expression cannot be solved explicitly, it is impossible to search the entire space for a solution. Instead, a representer theorem shows that under certain conditions on the choice of the norm ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} , the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} must be a linear combination of the kernel centered at each of the input points: for some weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , f ∗ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 ℓ + u α i K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{\ell +u}\alpha _{i}K(x_{i},x)} Using this result, it is possible to search for the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} by searching the finite-dimensional space defined by the possible choices of α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} . === Functional approach of the Laplacian norm === The idea beyond the graph-Laplacian is to use neighbors to estimate the Laplacian. This method is akin to local averaging methods, that are known to scale poorly in high-dimensional problems. Indeed, the graph Laplacian is known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Luckily, it is possible to leverage expected smoothness of the function to estimate thanks to more advanced functional analysis. This method consists of estimating the Laplacian operator using derivatives of the kernel reading ∂ 1 , j K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}K(x_{i},x)} where ∂ 1 , j {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}} denotes the partial derivatives according to the j-th coordinate of the first variable. This second approach to the Laplacian norm is to put in relation with meshfree methods, that contrast with the finite difference method in PDE. == Applications == Manifold regularization can extend a variety of algorithms that can be expressed using Tikhonov regularization, by choosing an appropriate loss function V {\displaystyle V} and hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Two commonly used examples are the families of support vector machines and regularized least squares algorithm
Super-resolution imaging
Super-resolution imaging (SR) is a class of techniques that improve the resolution of an imaging system. In optical SR the diffraction limit of systems is transcended, while in geometrical SR the resolution of digital imaging sensors is enhanced. In some radar and sonar imaging applications (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), high-resolution computed tomography), subspace decomposition-based methods (e.g. MUSIC) and compressed sensing-based algorithms (e.g., SAMV) are employed to achieve SR over standard periodogram algorithm. Super-resolution imaging techniques are used in general image processing and in super-resolution microscopy. == Super-resolution principles == Several concepts are fundamental to super-resolution imaging: Diffraction limit: the capacity of an optical instrument to reproduce the details of an object in an image has limits that are imposed by laws of physics: the diffraction equations in the wave theory of light, or the uncertainty principle for photons in quantum mechanics. Information transfer can never be increased beyond this boundary, but packets outside the limits can be cleverly swapped for (or multiplexed with) some inside it. Super-resolution microscopy does not so much “break” as “circumvent” the diffraction limit. New procedures probing electro-magnetic disturbances at the molecular level (in the so-called near field) remain fully consistent with Maxwell's equations. Spatial frequency domain: A succinct expression of the diffraction limit is given in the spatial frequency domain. In Fourier optics light distributions are expressed as superpositions of a series of grating light patterns in a range of fringe widths - these widths represent the spatial frequencies. It is generally taught that diffraction theory stipulates an upper limit, the cut-off spatial-frequency, beyond which pattern elements fail to be transferred into the optical image, i.e., are not resolved. But in fact what is set by diffraction theory is the width of the passband, not a fixed upper limit. No laws of physics are broken when a spatial frequency band beyond the cut-off spatial frequency is swapped for one inside it: this has long been implemented in dark-field microscopy. Nor are information-theoretical rules broken when superimposing several bands, disentangling them in the received image needs assumptions of object invariance during multiple exposures, i.e., the substitution of one kind of uncertainty for another. Information: When the term super-resolution is used in techniques based on the inference of object details using a statistical treatment of the image within standard resolution limits (for example, averaging multiple exposures), it involves an exchange of one kind of information (extracting signal from noise) for another (the assumption that the target has remained invariant). Recent breakthroughs incorporate quantum-transformer hybrids into super-resolution, such as QUIET‑SR, a 2025 model that employs shifted quantum window attention within a transformer to enhance image detail while respecting diffraction and information-theory limits Similarly, frequency-integrated transformers (e.g., FIT) enrich super-resolution by explicitly combining spatial and frequency-domain information via FFT-based attention, improving reconstruction across scales Resolution and localization: True resolution involves the distinction of whether a target, e.g. a star or a spectral line, is single or double, ordinarily requiring separable peaks in the image. When a target is known to be single, its location can be determined with higher precision than the image width by finding the centroid (center of gravity) of its image light distribution. The word ultra-resolution had been proposed for this process but it did not catch on, and the high-precision localization procedure is typically referred to as super-resolution. == Techniques == === Optical or diffractive super-resolution === Substituting spatial-frequency bands: Though the bandwidth allowable by diffraction is fixed, it can be positioned anywhere in the spatial-frequency spectrum. Dark-field illumination in microscopy is an example. See also aperture synthesis. ==== Multiplexing spatial-frequency bands ==== An image is formed using the normal passband of the optical device. Then, some known light structure (for example, a set of light fringes) is superimposed on the target. The image now contains components resulting from the combination of the target and the superimposed light structure, e.g. moiré fringes, and carries information about target detail which simple unstructured illumination does not. The “superresolved” components, however, need disentangling to be revealed. For an example, see structured illumination (figure to left). ==== Multiple parameter use within traditional diffraction limit ==== If a target has no special polarization or wavelength properties, two polarization states or non-overlapping wavelength regions can be used to encode target details, one in a spatial-frequency band inside the cut-off limit the other beyond it. Both would use normal passband transmission but are then separately decoded to reconstitute target structure with extended resolution. ==== Probing near-field electromagnetic disturbance ==== Super-resolution microscopy is generally discussed within the realm of conventional optical imagery. However, modern technology allows the probing of electromagnetic disturbance within molecular distances of the source, which has superior resolution properties. See also evanescent waves and the development of the new super lens. === Geometrical or image-processing super-resolution === ==== Multi-exposure image noise reduction ==== When an image is degraded by noise, the resolution may be improved by averaging multiple exposures. See example on the right. ==== Single-frame deblurring ==== Known defects in a given imaging situation, such as defocus or aberrations, can sometimes be mitigated in whole or in part by suitable spatial-frequency filtering of even a single image. Such procedures all stay within the diffraction-mandated passband, and do not extend it. ==== Sub-pixel image localization ==== The location of a single source can be determined by computing the "center of gravity" (centroid) of the light distribution extending over several adjacent pixels (see figure on the left). Provided that there is enough light, this can be achieved with arbitrary precision, very much better than pixel width of the detecting apparatus and the resolution limit for the decision of whether the source is single or double. This technique, which requires the presupposition that all the light comes from a single source, is at the basis of what has become known as super-resolution microscopy, e.g. stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM), where fluorescent probes attached to molecules give nanoscale distance information. It is also the mechanism underlying visual hyperacuity. ==== Bayesian induction beyond traditional diffraction limit ==== Some object features, though beyond the diffraction limit, may be known to be associated with other object features that are within the limits and hence contained in the image. Then conclusions can be drawn, using statistical methods, from the available image data about the presence of the full object. The classical example is Toraldo di Francia's proposition of judging whether an image is that of a single or double star by determining whether its width exceeds the spread from a single star. This can be achieved at separations well below the classical resolution bounds, and requires the prior limitation to the choice "single or double?" The approach can take the form of extrapolating the image in the frequency domain, by assuming that the object is an analytic function, and that we can exactly know the function values in some interval. This method is severely limited by the ever-present noise in digital imaging systems, but it can work for radar, astronomy, microscopy or magnetic resonance imaging. More recently, a fast single image super-resolution algorithm based on a closed-form solution to ℓ 2 − ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}-\ell _{2}} problems has been proposed and demonstrated to accelerate most of the existing Bayesian super-resolution methods significantly. == Aliasing == Geometrical SR reconstruction algorithms are possible if and only if the input low resolution images have been under-sampled and therefore contain aliasing. Because of this aliasing, the high-frequency content of the desired reconstruction image is embedded in the low-frequency content of each of the observed images. Given a sufficient number of observation images, and if the set of observations vary in their phase (i.e. if the images of the scene are shifted by a sub-pixel amount), then the phase information can be used to separate the aliased high-frequency content from the true low-frequency content, and the full-resolution image can be accurate
Best AI Text-to-image Tools in 2026
Trying to pick the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Best AI Bug Finders in 2026
In search of the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI bug finder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Moses (machine translation)
Moses is a statistical machine translation engine that can be used to train statistical models of text translation from a source language to a target language, developed by the University of Edinburgh. Moses then allows new source-language text to be decoded using these models to produce automatic translations in the target language. Training requires a parallel corpus of passages in the two languages, typically manually translated sentence pairs. Moses is free and open-source software, released under the GNU Library Public License (LGPL), and available as source code and binary files for Windows and Linux. Its development is supported mainly by the EuroMatrix project, with funding by the European Commission. Among its features are: A beam search algorithm that quickly finds the highest probability translation within a set of choices Phrase-based translation of short text chunks Handles words with multiple factored representations to enable integrating linguistic and other information (e.g., surface form, lemma and morphology, part-of-speech, word class) Decodes ambiguous forms of a source sentence, represented as a confusion network, to support integrating with upstream tools such as speech recognizers Support for large language models (LMs) such as IRSTLM (an exact LM using memory-mapping) and RandLM (an inexact LM based on Bloom filters)
JBoss Tools
JBoss Tools is a set of Eclipse plugins and features designed to help JBoss and JavaEE developers develop applications. It is an umbrella project for the JBoss developed plugins that will make it into JBoss Developer Studio. == Modules == JBoss Tools includes the following modules: Visual Page Editor (VPE). The visual editor contributed by Exadel supports visual editing of HTML and JSF (JSP and Facelets) pages. VPE also includes visual support for JSF component libraries including JBoss RichFaces. Seam Tools. Includes support for (for example) seam-gen, RichFaces VE integration, Seam related code completion and refactoring. Hibernate Tools. Supporting mapping files, annotations and JPA with reverse engineering, code completion, project wizards, refactoring, interactive HQL/JPA-QL/Criteria execution and more. In short a merger of Hibernate Tools and Exadel ORM features. JBoss AS Tools. Easy start, stop and debug of JBoss AS 4+ servers from within Eclipse. Also includes features for packaging and deployment of any type of Eclipse project. Drools IDE. Rules file editing, Rete View, working memory debugging/inspection and more. jBPM Tools. jBPM workflow editing, deployment, etc. JBossWS Tools. Inspecting, invoking, developing and functional/load/compliance testing of web services over HTTP, base tooling provided by soapUI with the addition of JBossWS specific features/support. JBoss ESB Tools. The structured xml editor for the jboss-esb.xml file used in JBoss ESB. Birt Tools. Hibernate and Seam extensions for Eclipse BIRT. Portal Tools. JBoss Tools supports the JSR-168 Portlet Specification (Portlet 1.0), JSR-286 Portlet Specification (Portlet 2.0) and works with PortletBridge for supporting Portlets in JSF/Seam applications. To enable these features, add the JBoss Portlet facet to a new or an existing web project. Core/General Tools. To reduce the UI clutter, most of the "configure project" menu items move into the Configure menu introduced in Eclipse 3.5 instead of always having a static JBoss Tools menu entry show up even in projects unrelated to JBoss Tools. Smooks Tools. The editor for Smooks configuration files. JBoss ESB Tools. The ESB project Wizard, which creates a project that can be deployed as an .esb archive to a JBoss AS-based server with JBoss ESB installed. JMX Tools. JMX Tools allows establishing multiple JMX connections and provides views for exploring the JMX tree and execute operations directly from Eclipse. The JMX Tools replaces the JMX node previously available in the JBoss Server View. JST/JSF Tools. RichFaces Support, Code Assists, Web XML/JSP/XHTML Editors, CSS Style Editing, web.xml validation, Faceleted taglib in taglib.xml is supported with XSD schema location. Project Examples. The experimental feature called Project Example wizard aims to allow users to download example projects from a remote site and have them working out-of-the-box. AS/Project Archives Tools. To deploy projects compressed, configurable in the server editor. If enabled, all projects deployed to that server will be compressed instead of in an exploded folder. Maven Tools. The optional integration with m2eclipse to provide Maven support for projects created by JBoss Tools and to some extent core WTP projects. BPEL Tools. A BPEL Editor based on the Eclipse BPEL project has been added to JBoss Tools. This means that users can create, edit and deploy BPEL artifacts for the Riftsaw BPEL Runtime. CDI (JSR-299) Tools. Support of the Contexts and Dependency Injection annotations; it works on any Eclipse Java project (via the Configure menu with CDI enabled).
F-score
In statistical analysis of binary classification and information retrieval systems, the F-score or F-measure is a measure of predictive performance. It is calculated from the precision and recall of the test, where the precision is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples predicted to be positive, including those not identified correctly, and the recall is the number of true positive results divided by the number of all samples that should have been identified as positive. Precision is also known as positive predictive value, and recall is also known as sensitivity in diagnostic binary classification. The F1 score is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall. It thus symmetrically represents both precision and recall in one metric. The more generic F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score applies additional weights, valuing one of precision or recall more than the other. The highest possible value of an F-score is 1.0, indicating perfect precision and recall, and the lowest possible value is 0, if the precision or the recall is zero. == Etymology == The name F-measure is believed to be named after a different F function in Van Rijsbergen's book, when introduced to the Fourth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-4, 1992). == Definition == The traditional F-measure or balanced F-score (F1 score) is the harmonic mean of precision and recall: F 1 = 2 r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = 2 p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l p r e c i s i o n + r e c a l l = 2 T P 2 T P + F P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2}{\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}=2{\frac {\mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{\mathrm {precision} +\mathrm {recall} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} With precision = TP / (TP + FP) and recall = TP / (TP + FN), it follows that the numerator of F1 is the sum of their numerators and the denominator of F1 is the sum of their denominators. If FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = T P T P + F P {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} }}} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = T P T P + F N {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {\mathrm {TP} }{\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} }}} So, F1 = precision = recall If TP=FP=FN F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F P = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FP} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} or F 1 = 2 T P 2 T P + 2 F N = 2 T P 4 T P = 1 2 = 0.5 {\displaystyle F_{1}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{2\mathrm {TP} +2\mathrm {FN} }}={\frac {2\mathrm {TP} }{4\mathrm {TP} }}={\frac {1}{2}}=0.5} To see it as a harmonic mean, note that F 1 − 1 = 1 2 ( r e c a l l − 1 + p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{1}^{-1}={\frac {1}{2}}(\mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . === Fβ score === A more general F score, F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} , that uses a positive real factor β {\displaystyle \beta } , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is chosen such that recall is considered β {\displaystyle \beta } times as important as precision, is: F β = β 2 + 1 ( β 2 ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 ) + p r e c i s i o n − 1 = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ⋅ r e c a l l ( β 2 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n ) + r e c a l l {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {\beta ^{2}+1}{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1})+\mathrm {precision} ^{-1}}}={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {precision} \cdot \mathrm {recall} }{(\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {precision} )+\mathrm {recall} }}} To see that as a weighted harmonic mean, note that F β − 1 = 1 β + β − 1 ( β ⋅ r e c a l l − 1 + β − 1 ⋅ p r e c i s i o n − 1 ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }^{-1}={\frac {1}{\beta +\beta ^{-1}}}(\beta \cdot \mathrm {recall} ^{-1}+\beta ^{-1}\cdot \mathrm {precision} ^{-1})} . In terms of Type I and type II errors this becomes: F β = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P + β 2 ⋅ F N + F P = ( 1 + β 2 ) ⋅ T P ( T P + F N ) ⋅ β 2 + ( T P + F P ) {\displaystyle F_{\beta }={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} +\beta ^{2}\cdot \mathrm {FN} +\mathrm {FP} }}\,={\frac {(1+\beta ^{2})\cdot \mathrm {TP} }{(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FN} )\cdot \beta ^{2}+(\mathrm {TP} +\mathrm {FP} )}}\,} Two commonly used values for β {\displaystyle \beta } are 2, which weighs recall higher than precision, and 1/2, which weighs recall lower than precision. The F-measure was derived so that F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} "measures the effectiveness of retrieval with respect to a user who attaches β {\displaystyle \beta } times as much importance to recall as precision". It is based on Van Rijsbergen's effectiveness measure E = 1 − ( α p + 1 − α r ) − 1 {\displaystyle E=1-\left({\frac {\alpha }{p}}+{\frac {1-\alpha }{r}}\right)^{-1}} Their relationship is: F β = 1 − E {\displaystyle F_{\beta }=1-E} where α = 1 1 + β 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ={\frac {1}{1+\beta ^{2}}}} == Diagnostic testing == This is related to the field of binary classification where recall is often termed "sensitivity". == Dependence of the F-score on class imbalance == Precision-recall curve, and thus the F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} score, explicitly depends on the ratio r {\displaystyle r} of positive to negative test cases. This means that comparison of the F-score across different problems with differing class ratios is problematic. One way to address this issue (see e.g., Siblini et al., 2020) is to use a standard class ratio r 0 {\displaystyle r_{0}} when making such comparisons. == Applications == The F-score is often used in the field of information retrieval for measuring search, document classification, and query classification performance. It is particularly relevant in applications which are primarily concerned with the positive class and where the positive class is rare relative to the negative class. Earlier works focused primarily on the F1 score, but with the proliferation of large scale search engines, performance goals changed to place more emphasis on either precision or recall and so F β {\displaystyle F_{\beta }} is seen in wide application. The F-score is also used in machine learning. However, the F-measures do not take true negatives into account, hence measures such as the Matthews correlation coefficient, Informedness or Cohen's kappa may be preferred to assess the performance of a binary classifier. The F-score has been widely used in the natural language processing literature, such as in the evaluation of named entity recognition and word segmentation. == Properties == The F1 score is the Dice coefficient of the set of retrieved items and the set of relevant items. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class converges to 1 as the probability of the positive class increases. The F1-score of a classifier which always predicts the positive class is equal to 2 proportion_of_positive_class / ( 1 + proportion_of_positive_class ), since the recall is 1, and the precision is equal to the proportion of the positive class. If the scoring model is uninformative (cannot distinguish between the positive and negative class) then the optimal threshold is 0 so that the positive class is always predicted. F1 score is concave in the true positive rate. == Criticism == David Hand and others criticize the widespread use of the F1 score since it gives equal importance to precision and recall. In practice, different types of mis-classifications incur different costs. In other words, the relative importance of precision and recall is an aspect of the problem. According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the F1 score is less truthful and informative than the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) in binary evaluation classification. David M W Powers has pointed out that F1 ignores the True Negatives and thus is misleading for unbalanced classes, while kappa and correlation measures are symmetric and assess both directions of predictability - the classifier predicting the true class and the true class predicting the classifier prediction, proposing separate multiclass measures Informedness and Markedness for the two directions, noting that their geometric mean is correlation. Another source of critique of F1 is its lack of symmetry. It means it may change its value when dataset labeling is changed - the "positive" samples are named "negative" and vice versa. This criticism is met by the P4 metric definition, which is sometimes indicated as a symmetrical extension of F1. Finally, Ferrer and Dyrland et al. argue that the expected cost (or its counterpart, the expected utility) is the only principled metric for evaluation of classification decisions, having various advantages over the F-score and the MCC. Both works show that the F-score can result in wrong conclusions about the absolute and relative quality of systems. == Difference from Fowlkes–Mallows index == While the F-measur