跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1163新增论文
+868其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 07:02 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 08:44 — 2026-11-06 08:44(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-06 07:02最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 07:00(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02639

Where Is a Prediction Model Miscalibrated, and for Whom? Local Audits in Outcome-Learned Pockets

Bernardo Modenesi, Taoyi Chen, Sima Najafzadehkhoei, Lucia Wang, Ameya Diwan, Beatrice Knudsen

Overall and group-level averages, and ranking metrics such as the AUC, can hide sets of observations for which a prediction model systematically over- or under-predicts. We present an audit that asks where a model is miscalibrated (in which sets of similar observations it over- or under-predicts on average) and for whom (whether its average prediction error differs between demographic groups, such as by race or sex, within the same set). It groups observations into pockets using random-forest similarity, which weighs each feature by its importance for predicting the outcome, with a ridge-regression grouping alongside. Pockets are learned on one sample and tested on another, with simultaneous confidence intervals that allow for correlation within units such as hospitals; the audit needs only features, outcomes and fixed predictions. In 17 simulation scenarios with an error planted for one group, the combined audit located it better than the strongest alternative grouping in 15, with false-alarm rates near or below 5%; with a local error planted for everyone, it won in 12 of 15 scenarios at the smaller error size and lost when the error was unrelated to the outcome. In public synthetic data from the care-management algorithm studied by Obermeyer et al., it found no detectable overall error but under-prediction of illness in the sickest pockets and over-prediction elsewhere, and distinguished Black patients' concentration where the score under-predicted for everyone from a Black-White gap within pockets. For APACHE IVa, an exploratory analysis located its previously reported over-prediction of ICU mortality in a mostly ventilated pocket and a low-risk pocket, with none detected in a moderate-risk one. Two chest X-ray classifiers showed offsetting local errors behind no detectable overall error. Code: https://github.com/modenesi/pocket-audit

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.LG · cs.AI · stat.ME · stat.ML
arXiv ↗PDF ↗