Is a Classification Procedure Good Enough? A Goodness-of-Fit Assessment Tool for Classification Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, many non-traditional classification methods, such as Random Forest, Boosting, and neural network, have been widely used in applications. Their performance is typically measured in terms of classification accuracy. While the classification error rate and the like are important, they do not address a fundamental question: Is the classification method underfitted? To our best knowledge, there is no existing method that can assess the goodness-of-fit of a general classification procedure. Indeed, the lack of a parametric assumption makes it challenging to construct proper tests. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a methodology called BAGofT that splits the data into a training set and a validation set. First, the classification procedure to assess is applied to the training set, which is also used to adaptively find a data grouping that reveals the most severe regions of underfitting. Then, based on this grouping, we calculate a test statistic by comparing the estimated success probabilities and the actual observed responses from the validation set. The data splitting guarantees that the size of the test is controlled under the null hypothesis, and the power of the test goes to one as the sample size increases under the alternative hypothesis. For testing parametric classification models, the BAGofT has a broader scope than the existing methods since it is not restricted to specific parametric models (e.g., logistic regression). Extensive simulation studies show the utility of the BAGofT when assessing general classification procedures and its strengths over some existing methods when testing parametric classification models.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
9 papers.
- 2022Federated Learning Challenges and Opportunities: An Outlookcited by 19
- 2023Is this model reliable for everyone? Testing for strong calibrationcited by 6
- 2022GRASP: A Goodness-of-Fit Test for Classification Learningcited by 1
- 2025From Conditional to Unconditional Independence: Testing Conditional Independence via Transport Mapscited by 1
- 2025On the Role of Calibration in Benchmarking Algorithmic Fairness for Skin Cancer Detectioncited by 1
- 2022Hierarchical Neyman-Pearson Classification for Prioritizing Severe Disease Categories in COVID-19 Patient Datacited by 0
- 2025Machine-Learning-Assisted Comparison of Regression Functionscited by 0
- 2026[EDGE] A grouped calibration test for logistic regression that tolerates a few corrupted recordscited by 0
- 2026SPARK: A General Goodness-of-Fit Assessment via Residual Projectioncited by 0
- 2026SPARK: A General Goodness-of-Fit Assessment via Residual Projection29 Sep 2026
- 2026[EDGE] A grouped calibration test for logistic regression that tolerates a few corrupted records20 Aug 2026
- 2025On the Role of Calibration in Benchmarking Algorithmic Fairness for Skin Cancer Detection10 Nov 2025
- 2025Machine-Learning-Assisted Comparison of Regression Functions28 Oct 2025
- 2025From Conditional to Unconditional Independence: Testing Conditional Independence via Transport Maps13 Apr 2025
- 2023Is this model reliable for everyone? Testing for strong calibration28 Jul 2023
- 2022Hierarchical Neyman-Pearson Classification for Prioritizing Severe Disease Categories in COVID-19 Patient Data1 Oct 2022
- 2022GRASP: A Goodness-of-Fit Test for Classification Learning5 Sep 2022
- 2022Federated Learning Challenges and Opportunities: An Outlook1 Feb 2022