User:IssaRice/Scoring rule: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
how can we formalize the idea of a rule for scoring predictions?
how can we formalize the idea of a rule for scoring predictions?


==first pass==
==first pass: statements and probabilities==


we can start with a list <math>s_1,\ldots,s_n</math> of statements. each statement makes a yes/no prediction about the future, like "the die will show 3 when rolled". then we have a list of probabilities <math>p_1,\ldots,p_n</math> where <math>p_j</math> is the probability someone assigns to <math>s_j</math> being true. now, reality evaluates each statement, giving us a yes/no answer <math>r(s_j) \in \{0,1\}</math>. our probabilities are scored against this response from reality. so a scoring rule S can be some function of <math>p_1,\ldots,p_n,r(s_1),\ldots,r(s_n)</math>. so the type can be <math>S : [0,1]^n \times \{0,1\}^n \to \mathbf R</math>.
we can start with a list <math>s_1,\ldots,s_n</math> of statements. each statement makes a yes/no prediction about the future, like "the die will show 3 when rolled". then we have a list of probabilities <math>p_1,\ldots,p_n</math> where <math>p_j</math> is the probability someone assigns to <math>s_j</math> being true. now, reality evaluates each statement, giving us a yes/no answer <math>r(s_j) \in \{0,1\}</math>. our probabilities are scored against this response from reality. so a scoring rule S can be some function of <math>p_1,\ldots,p_n,r(s_1),\ldots,r(s_n)</math>. so the type can be <math>S : [0,1]^n \times \{0,1\}^n \to \mathbf R</math>.
Line 7: Line 7:
if we are an ordinary statistician [https://www.readthesequences.com/A-Technical-Explanation-Of-Technical-Explanation], we might pick a rule like <math>\sum_{j=1}^n (p_j - r(s_j))^2</math>. (this is actually almost the brier score)
if we are an ordinary statistician [https://www.readthesequences.com/A-Technical-Explanation-Of-Technical-Explanation], we might pick a rule like <math>\sum_{j=1}^n (p_j - r(s_j))^2</math>. (this is actually almost the brier score)


==second pass==
==second pass: events==
 
in probability theory, we are used to dealing with events and random variables. in the previous section, we naively stated scoring rules in terms of statements and probabilities. but we might try now to phrase things in terms of events.
 
instead of statements <math>s_1, \ldots, s_n</math>, we could have a list of events <math>A_1, \ldots, A_n</math>. here, <math>A_j</math> is an event expressing the fact that <math>s_j</math> is true. then <math>p_j = P(A_j)</math>, where P is the probability measure which encodes our knowledge of what events are likely. <math>r(s_j)</math> is the outcome in some possible world, so <math>r(s_j) = 1_{A_j}(\omega)</math>.

Revision as of 03:51, 8 January 2020

how can we formalize the idea of a rule for scoring predictions?

first pass: statements and probabilities

we can start with a list s1,,sn of statements. each statement makes a yes/no prediction about the future, like "the die will show 3 when rolled". then we have a list of probabilities p1,,pn where pj is the probability someone assigns to sj being true. now, reality evaluates each statement, giving us a yes/no answer r(sj){0,1}. our probabilities are scored against this response from reality. so a scoring rule S can be some function of p1,,pn,r(s1),,r(sn). so the type can be S:[0,1]n×{0,1}nR.

if we are an ordinary statistician [1], we might pick a rule like j=1n(pjr(sj))2. (this is actually almost the brier score)

second pass: events

in probability theory, we are used to dealing with events and random variables. in the previous section, we naively stated scoring rules in terms of statements and probabilities. but we might try now to phrase things in terms of events.

instead of statements s1,,sn, we could have a list of events A1,,An. here, Aj is an event expressing the fact that sj is true. then pj=P(Aj), where P is the probability measure which encodes our knowledge of what events are likely. r(sj) is the outcome in some possible world, so r(sj)=1Aj(ω).