Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

Why does Kaggle use Log-loss?

If you're not familiar with Kaggle, it's an organization dedicated to data science competitions to both provide ways for companies to potentially do analytics at less cost, as well as to identify talented data scientists.

Competitions are scored using a variety of functions, and the most common for binary classification tasks with confidence is something called log-loss, which is essentially \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \log(p_i)\), where \(p_i\) is your model's claimed confidence for test data point \(i\)'s correct label. Why does Kaggle use this scoring function? Here I'll follow Terry Tao's argument.

Ideally what we'd like is a scoring function \(f(x)\) that yields the maximum expected score precisely when the claimed confidence \(x_i\) in the correct label for \(i\) is actually what the submitter believes is the true probability (or frequency) of that outcome. This means that we want \[L(x)=p\cdot f(x) + (1-p)\cdot f(1-x)\] for fixed \(p\) to be maximized when \(x=p\). Differentiating, this means \[L'(x) = p\cdot f'(x) - (1-p)\cdot f'(1-x) = 0\] when \(x=p\), hence \(p\cdot f'(p) = (1-p)\cdot f'(1-p)\) for all \(p\). This will be satisfied by any admissible \(f(x)\) with \(x\cdot f'(x)\) symmetric around \(x=\frac{1}{2}\), but if we extend our analysis to multinomial outcomes we get the stronger conclusion that in fact \(x\cdot f'(x) = c_0\) for some constant \(c_0\). This in turn implies \(f(x)=c_0\cdot \log(x)+c_1\). If we want \(f(1/2)=0\) and \(f(1)=1\), we end up with \(f(x)={\log}_2(2x)\) and the expected score is \[L(x)=x\cdot {\log}_2(2x) + (1-x)\cdot {\log}_2(2(1-x)).\]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem . Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way. Standard notation: probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \) probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \) Bayes' Theorem: Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written:  \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \] Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem . If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random. Assume we pick Door 1 an...
20 comments
Read more

Baseball, Chess, Psychology and Pychometrics: Everyone Uses the Same Damn Rating System

Here's a short summary of the relationship between common models used in baseball, chess, psychology and education. The starting point for examining the connections between various extended models in these areas. The next steps include multiple attempts, guessing, ordinal and multinomial outcomes, uncertainty and volatility, multiple categories and interactions. There are also connections to standard optimization algorithms (neural  nets, simulated annealing). Baseball Common in baseball and other sports, the log5 method provides an estimate for the probability \( p \) of participant 1 beating participant 2 given respective success probabilities \( p_1, p_2 \). Also let \( q_* = 1 -p_* \) in the following. The log5 estimate of the outcome is then: \begin{align} p &= \frac{p_1 q_2}{p_1 q_2+q_1 p_2}\\   &= \frac{p_1/q_1}{p_1/q_1+p_2/q_2}\\ \frac{p}{q} &= \frac{p_1}{q_1} \cdot \frac{q_2}{p_2} \end{align} The final form uses the odds ratio , \( \frac{p}{q}...
Post a Comment
Read more

Simplified Multinomial Kelly

Here's a simplified version for optimal Kelly bets when you have multiple outcomes (e.g. horse races). The Smoczynski & Tomkins algorithm, which is explained here (or in the original paper): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horses Let's say there's a wager that, for every $1 you bet, will return a profit of $b if you win. Let the probability of winning be \(p\), and losing be \(q=1-p\). The original Kelly criterion says to wager only if \(b\cdot p-q > 0\) (the expected value is positive), and in this case to wager a fraction \( \frac{b\cdot p-q}{b} \) of your bankroll. But in a horse race, how do you decide which set of outcomes are favorable to bet on? It's tricky, because these wagers are mutually exclusive i.e. you can win at most one. It turns out there's a simple and intuitive method to find which bets are favorable: 1) Look at \( b\cdot p-q\) for every horse. 2) Pick any horse for which \( b\cdot p-q > 0\) and mar...
Post a Comment
Read more