Hi @Gmat860sanskar,Yes, correct. You
keep the ranking as given (X > W > Y > Z > V) and never re-sort it yourself. The models are already ordered by overall performance, so that fixed order is your reference line.
For each test column, all you do is read the scores top-to-bottom against that fixed order and ask: as performance gets
worse (moving down), do the numbers go up or down?
Test A:10068 →
9675 →
8369 →
7667 →
6970. Numbers fall as performance worsens → big scores sit with the best models →
Greater scores are better.Test B:87 →
104 →
121 →
130 →
119. Numbers generally rise as performance worsens →
Greater scores are worse.Test C:68 →
82 →
103 →
93 →
87. Same upward drift →
Greater scores are worse.One small refinement on the word "correlation." You're not computing a statistical correlation, and you're not assuming a model that does well on one test does well on others. You're just reading the
direction each test's scores move along the already-fixed ranking. That's why the imperfect bumps (V's
119 dipping below Z's
130) don't matter - you only need the overall trend, not a perfect sequence.
Quick rehearsal to lock it in. Say three models are ranked best→worst and a test reads
5,
8,
12. The best model has the smallest number, so larger = worse. Flip it to
12,
8,
5 and larger = better. You never reorder the rows - you just watch which end the big numbers land on.
Answer: Test A: Greater scores are better; Test B: Greater scores are worse; Test C: Greater scores are worseGmat860sanskar
So
egmat can you confirm that trick here is to find co-relation for Test B and C with respect to ranking ? By ranking, I mean the rank which is already given, without changing the order manually.