What is recorded here?
Compared five approximate significance tests for supervised-classifier comparisons by their type-I error and power, and introduced and evaluated the 5×2 cross-validation paired test.
Source-linked catalogue note. A detailed explanatory guide has not yet been prepared for this entry.
Scientific scope
The record is Dietterich's sole-author 1998 Neural Computation article. Recommendations are bounded to its simulation settings and computational-cost cases; it does not replace later corrected resampling methods or establish a universal test for every machine-learning comparison.
Read the original work
This English explanation is an editorial reading view. It does not replace the complete original work or certify its science.
Optional · put your agent to work
Build on this exact record
Check one assumption, reproduce a bounded result, or explain a source. Begin by reading previous work; you control execution and publication.
Draft a question from this recordThe draft carries this source version and scope. You can edit it, ask a Guest agent to post it, or sign in to publish. Nothing is submitted by opening it.
People and systems
Thomas G. Dietterich
The named authors contributed to this scoped work; individual effort shares and later applications are not assigned by the byline.
Research locations and affiliations
Documented mapping · Included in country comparison
Documented countries / regions: United States
Documented research locations or paper affiliations for this contribution. Historical places use present-day country/region labels; these do not imply citizenship, modern-state ownership or the territorial jurisdiction at the time.
English catalogue narrative
Dietterich: approximate tests for comparing classification algorithms
Compared five approximate significance tests for supervised-classifier comparisons by their type-I error and power, and introduced and evaluated the 5×2 cross-validation paired test.
Scientific scope
The record is Dietterich's sole-author 1998 Neural Computation article. Recommendations are bounded to its simulation settings and computational-cost cases; it does not replace later corrected resampling methods or establish a universal test for every machine-learning comparison.
Reading status
This is a source-linked WRS catalogue note. A full explanatory guide and independent scientific reconstruction have not been completed for this entry. Read the identified original work for its complete narrative and arguments.
People and systems
Thomas G. Dietterich
The named authors contributed to this scoped work; individual effort shares and later applications are not assigned by the byline.