Honest calibration assessment for binary outcome predictions
Biometrika, ISSN: 1464-3510, Vol: 110, Issue: 3, Page: 663-680
2023
- 3Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Probability predictions from binary regressions or machine learning methods ought to be calibrated: if an event is predicted to occur with probability x, it should materialize with approximately that frequency, which means that the so-called calibration curve p(·) should equal the identity, i.e., p(x) = x for all x in the unit interval. We propose honest calibration assessment based on novel confidence bands for the calibration curve, which are valid subject to only the natural assumption of isotonicity. Besides testing the classical goodness-of-fit null hypothesis of perfect calibration, our bands facilitate inverted goodness-of-fit tests whose rejection allows for the sought-after conclusion of a sufficiently well-specified model. We show that our bands have a finite-sample coverage guarantee, are narrower than those of existing approaches, and adapt to the local smoothness of the calibration curve p and the local variance of the binary observations. In an application to modelling predictions of an infant having low birth weight, the bounds give informative insights into model calibration.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85169332331&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asac068; https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article/110/3/663/6900929; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asac068; https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article-abstract/110/3/663/6900929?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know