When Are Two Tests Better Than One? Increasing the Accuracy of Binary Classification With Repetitive Testing

Abstract Repetitive testing models for binary classification (accept or reject) have been extensively investigated in semiconductor fabrication where devices may be tested numerous times until they are accepted or ultimately scrapped. There are situations, however, where the number of tests is limited due to sample constraints or prohibitively high testing costs. Extant research in this domain assumes conditional independence between tests. In contrast, we propose a Markov model, allowing for dependency between consecutive tests, which is applied herein to situations with limited testing. Analysis of the proposed model reveals that assuming conditional independence, when tests are positively correlated, can inflate the probability of correct classification (PCC). The potential for inflating PCC raises concerns about the use of repetitive testing procedures in situations where they offer minimal or no practical benefit. This can be particularly detrimental in situations where repetitive testing is employed in an effort to increase classification accuracy. Our objective is to assess the impact of conducting two repetitive tests on the PCC in comparison to a single test. Conditions under which two tests increase the PCC are identified and discussed. Findings provide insight on the nuances of situations with limited testing, emphasizing that accuracy is highly contingent on how “ties” (conflicting test outcomes) are classified.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications
Published
2025-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44199-025-00105-2
Primary Topic
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When Are Two Tests Better Than One? Increasing the Accuracy of Binary Classification With Repetitive Testing

Jamie R. Wieland
Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
article

When Are Two Tests Better Than One? Increasing the Accuracy of Binary Classification With Repetitive Testing

Jamie R. Wieland
article en

Abstract

Abstract Repetitive testing models for binary classification (accept or reject) have been extensively investigated in semiconductor fabrication where devices may be tested numerous times until they are accepted or ultimately scrapped. There are situations, however, where the number of tests is limited due to sample constraints or prohibitively high testing costs. Extant research in this domain assumes conditional independence between tests. In contrast, we propose a Markov model, allowing for dependency between consecutive tests, which is applied herein to situations with limited testing. Analysis of the proposed model reveals that assuming conditional independence, when tests are positively correlated, can inflate the probability of correct classification (PCC). The potential for inflating PCC raises concerns about the use of repetitive testing procedures in situations where they offer minimal or no practical benefit. This can be particularly detrimental in situations where repetitive testing is employed in an effort to increase classification accuracy. Our objective is to assess the impact of conducting two repetitive tests on the PCC in comparison to a single test. Conditions under which two tests increase the PCC are identified and discussed. Findings provide insight on the nuances of situations with limited testing, emphasizing that accuracy is highly contingent on how “ties” (conflicting test outcomes) are classified.

Journal of Statistical Theory and ApplicationsVol. 24(1)
Illinois State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 95%
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.