Cited by 43Imbalanced Data Classification TechniquesMachine Learning and Data ClassificationMachine Learning and Algorithms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Novel Decompositions of Proper Scoring Rules for Classification: Score Adjustment as Precursor to Calibration

Open access
Kull, Meelis, Flach, Peter·2015·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-23528-8_5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Validity, later known as reliability, is now often called calibration loss.

    “Validity, later known as reliability (Murphy & Winkler, 1977), is now often called calibration loss (Kull & Flach, 2015).”

    From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull & Flach, 2015

    The Abstract (page unavailable) calls calibration loss a term in a well-known decomposition, supporting its use as a current term. Our copy does not state that calibration loss is the same quantity formerly called validity or reliability; searches for those terms found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The decomposition of proper scoring rule into calibration loss and refinement loss is the sum of expected loss between S and C and expected loss between C and Y.

    “The decomposition of proper scoring rule into calibration loss and refinement loss is then the sum of expected loss between S and C and expected loss between C and Y (Bröcker & Smith, 2007;Kull & Flach, 2015):”

    From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull & Flach, 2015

    The Abstract states that proper scoring rules have a well-known decomposition into calibration loss and refinement loss. It does not specify the claimed terms as expected loss between S and C and expected loss between C and Y, so that more precise formulation is not verified by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For log-loss and Brier score, the divergence associated with a proper scoring rule corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the mean squared difference, respectively.

    “For log-loss and Brier score, has been shown to correspond to the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the mean squared difference, respectively (Kull & Flach, 2015).”

    From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull & Flach, 2015

    The available passages are bibliographic entries for Kull and Flach (2015), not the paper’s discussion of scoring rules. Searches for log-loss, Brier score, Kullback–Leibler divergence, and mean squared difference returned no passage addressing the claimed correspondences. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Binning approaches can reduce calibration loss at the cost of a higher grouping loss.

    “In other words, binning approaches can reduce the calibration loss at the cost of a higher grouping loss (Kull & Flach, 2015).”

    From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull & Flach, 2015

    The available indexed passages are bibliographic metadata, not discussion of the paper’s findings. Searches for binning, calibration loss, and grouping loss returned no passage addressing the claimed trade-off, so our copy cannot verify it. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Assuming test data is representative of the whole population and there is a uniform distribution over test instances and zero probability elsewhere, empirical loss can be interpreted as a special case of expected loss and all decompositions derived for expected loss also apply to empirical loss.

    “But assuming that test data is representative of the whole population and that there is a uniform distribution over the test instances and zero probability elsewhere, empirical loss can be interpreted as a special case of expected loss and all decompositions derived for expected loss also apply to empirical loss (Kull & Flach, 2015).”

    From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull & Flach, 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bartlett, P.L., Jordan, M.I., McAuliffe, J.D.: Convexity, Classification, and Risk Bounds. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101(473), 138–156 (2006) · DOI
  2. Bröcker, J.: Reliability, sufficiency, and the decomposition of proper scores. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 135(643), 1512–1519 (2009) · DOI
  3. Hernández-Orallo, J., Flach, P., Ferri, C.: A unified view of performance metrics: translating threshold choice into expected classification loss. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 13(1), 2813–2869 (2012)
  4. Kull, M., Flach, P.A.: Reliability maps: a tool to enhance probability estimates and improve classification accuracy. In: Calders, T., Esposito, F., Hüllermeier, E., Meo, R. (eds.) ECML PKDD 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8725, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) · DOI
  5. Murphy, A.H.: Scalar and vector partitions of the probability score: Part I. Two-state situation. Journal of Applied Meteorology 11(2), 273–282 (1972) · DOI
  6. Murphy, A.H.: A new vector partition of the probability score. Journal of Applied Meteorology 12(4), 595–600 (1973) · DOI
  7. Senge, R., Bösner, S., Dembczynski, K., Haasenritter, J., Hirsch, O., Donner-Banzhoff, N., Hüllermeier, E.: Reliable classification: Learning classifiers that distinguish aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Information Sciences 255, 16–29 (2014) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kull, M., & Flach, P.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Kull, Meelis
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2015
Pages
68-85
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W1540419678
Cited by
43
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-12-CHRI-0005)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K018728/1)
  • CHIST-ERA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
proper scoring rules, calibration, score adjustment, Brier score, cross-entropy loss, multi-class classification, posterior probability estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review