Robustness of the Quadratic Discriminant Function to correlated and uncorrelated normal training samples

3Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study investigates the asymptotic performance of the Quadratic Discriminant Function (QDF) under correlated and uncorrelated normal training samples. This paper specifically examines the effect of correlation, uncorrelation considering different sample size ratios, number of variables and varying group centroid separators (Formula presented.) on classification accuracy of the QDF using simulated data from three populations (πi,i=1,2,3). The three populations differs with respect to their mean vector and covariance matrices. The results show the correlated normal distribution exhibits high coefficient of variation as δ increased. The QDF performed better when the training samples were correlated than when they were under uncorrelated normal distribution. The QDF performed better resulting in the reduction in misclassification error rates as group centroid separator increases with non increasing sample size under correlated training samples.

Figures

  • Fig. 1 Average error rates of correlated normal distribution for δ: n1:n2:n3 = 1:1:1
  • Table 1 Effects of  sample size on  QDF for  correlated normal based on  error rates, CV and SD
  • Table 1 continued
  • Table 2 Effects of  sample size on  QDF for  uncorrelated normal based on  error rates, CV and SD
  • Table 2 continued
  • Fig. 2 Average error rates of uncorrelated normal distribution: δ = 1
  • Fig. 3 Coefficients of variation for uncorrelated normal distribution: δ = 1
  • Fig. 4 Coefficients of variation for correlated normal distribution: δ = 1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Adebanji, A., Asamoah-Boaheng, M., & Osei-Tutu, O. (2016). Robustness of the Quadratic Discriminant Function to correlated and uncorrelated normal training samples. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1718-3

Readers over time

‘16‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2501234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

75%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 1

33%

Mathematics 1

33%

Engineering 1

33%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0