Superior scoring rules for probabilistic evaluation of single-label multi-class classification tasks

IF 3.2 3区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Rouhollah Ahmadian , Mehdi Ghatee , Johan Wahlström
{"title":"Superior scoring rules for probabilistic evaluation of single-label multi-class classification tasks","authors":"Rouhollah Ahmadian ,&nbsp;Mehdi Ghatee ,&nbsp;Johan Wahlström","doi":"10.1016/j.ijar.2025.109421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study introduces novel superior scoring rules called Penalized Brier Score (<em>PBS</em>) and Penalized Logarithmic Loss (<em>PLL</em>) to improve model evaluation for probabilistic classification. Traditional scoring rules like Brier Score and Logarithmic Loss sometimes assign better scores to misclassifications in comparison with correct classifications. This discrepancy from the actual preference for rewarding correct classifications can lead to suboptimal model selection. By integrating penalties for misclassifications, <em>PBS</em> and <em>PLL</em> modify traditional proper scoring rules to consistently assign better scores to correct predictions. Formal proofs demonstrate that <em>PBS</em> and <em>PLL</em> satisfy strictly proper scoring rule properties while also preferentially rewarding accurate classifications. Experiments showcase the benefits of using <em>PBS</em> and <em>PLL</em> for model selection, model checkpointing, and early stopping. <em>PBS</em> exhibits a higher negative correlation with the F1 score compared to the Brier Score during training. Thus, <em>PBS</em> more effectively identifies optimal checkpoints and early stopping points, leading to improved F1 scores. Comparative analysis verifies models selected by <em>PBS</em> and <em>PLL</em> achieve superior F1 scores. Therefore, <em>PBS</em> and <em>PLL</em> address the gap between uncertainty quantification and accuracy maximization by encapsulating both proper scoring principles and explicit preference for true classifications. The proposed metrics can enhance model evaluation and selection for reliable probabilistic classification.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13842,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Approximate Reasoning","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 109421"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Approximate Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X25000623","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study introduces novel superior scoring rules called Penalized Brier Score (PBS) and Penalized Logarithmic Loss (PLL) to improve model evaluation for probabilistic classification. Traditional scoring rules like Brier Score and Logarithmic Loss sometimes assign better scores to misclassifications in comparison with correct classifications. This discrepancy from the actual preference for rewarding correct classifications can lead to suboptimal model selection. By integrating penalties for misclassifications, PBS and PLL modify traditional proper scoring rules to consistently assign better scores to correct predictions. Formal proofs demonstrate that PBS and PLL satisfy strictly proper scoring rule properties while also preferentially rewarding accurate classifications. Experiments showcase the benefits of using PBS and PLL for model selection, model checkpointing, and early stopping. PBS exhibits a higher negative correlation with the F1 score compared to the Brier Score during training. Thus, PBS more effectively identifies optimal checkpoints and early stopping points, leading to improved F1 scores. Comparative analysis verifies models selected by PBS and PLL achieve superior F1 scores. Therefore, PBS and PLL address the gap between uncertainty quantification and accuracy maximization by encapsulating both proper scoring principles and explicit preference for true classifications. The proposed metrics can enhance model evaluation and selection for reliable probabilistic classification.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
170
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Approximate Reasoning is intended to serve as a forum for the treatment of imprecision and uncertainty in Artificial and Computational Intelligence, covering both the foundations of uncertainty theories, and the design of intelligent systems for scientific and engineering applications. It publishes high-quality research papers describing theoretical developments or innovative applications, as well as review articles on topics of general interest. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to, probabilistic reasoning and Bayesian networks, imprecise probabilities, random sets, belief functions (Dempster-Shafer theory), possibility theory, fuzzy sets, rough sets, decision theory, non-additive measures and integrals, qualitative reasoning about uncertainty, comparative probability orderings, game-theoretic probability, default reasoning, nonstandard logics, argumentation systems, inconsistency tolerant reasoning, elicitation techniques, philosophical foundations and psychological models of uncertain reasoning. Domains of application for uncertain reasoning systems include risk analysis and assessment, information retrieval and database design, information fusion, machine learning, data and web mining, computer vision, image and signal processing, intelligent data analysis, statistics, multi-agent systems, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信