Talk:One-class classification

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The contents of PU learning was merged into One-class classification. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcastle626. Peer reviewers: Mcastle626.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

The opening sentence,

One-class classification, also known as unary classification, tries to distinguish one class of objects from all other possible objects

seems self-contradictory and doesn't make sense from a set theory standpoint. Is one-class classifier a misnomer? Distinguishing "one class of objects" from "all other possible objects" defines two sets. Think of a Venn diagram with just one circle. The circle divides the superset plane (all objects) in two: inside the circle and outside the circle. The objective in classification is to determine where the boundaries between sets - the circles - lie on the plane and so determine to which set points on the plane should be assigned.

Perhaps a better name would be one boundary classifier? --p.r.newman (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IMHO

Agreed. A unary classifier attempts to classify an instance as belonging to the class or not belonging to the class. There is no assumption of mutual-exclusivity with respect to some class of "all other objects". In the set-theoretic terms, regardless of whether an object belongs to a given subset of the universe, it will always belong to the universe.

So I'd say this is a fundamental mis-representation which should be addressed, by careful rephrasing.

--Justin Washtell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.231.200 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have fixed this now, by rephrasing as follows "One-class classification, also known as unary classification, tries to identify objects of a specific class amongst all objects", and later emphasizing the word "distinguish" in contrast to "identify".

--Justin Washtell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.231.200 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with PU learning

It seems that these two problems are very strongly related: PU learning is semisupervised one-class learning. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inputs of one-class classification and PU learning should be different

One-class classification: just need examples from 1 class PU learning needs the example from 1 class (positive) and also unlabeled data (which have hidden positives and hidden negatives) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.131.37 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for merging. I too suggest you merge these two articles, and point out the subtle differences with text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.90.243 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]