How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
KMR's finite group-conditioned risk-score assignment and calibration
Definition
Let and be nonempty finite sets of feature types and score bins. For each group , let be its total mass and let satisfy . Let be the probability of the positive binary outcome for feature type , with the same in both groups. A randomized risk assignment consists of scores for and a single matrix with for each ; conditional on feature type , the assignment chooses bin with probability , independently of group and outcome. Thus, for a group- individual chosen according to its feature distribution, and , and the assigned score is . The expected positive mass is , and the group base rate is .
The assignment is calibrated within group if for every ,
This cross-multiplied condition also covers bins with zero assigned mass. The instance permits perfect prediction when for every feature type with , with the bin set and scores allowed to be chosen for this existence question. Assign the occupied types with to a score- bin and those with to a score- bin, omitting an unused outcome bin. For a prescribed , at least two bins are needed when both deterministic outcomes occur among occupied types; one bin suffices when only one occurs. A score assignment is perfectly predictive when almost surely in each group.
Definition references
Probability calibration and calibration error: within each group, full reliability of the binary forecast gives the calibration identity for each distinct score value. This is the per-bin identity above when every score value occurs in only one bin; if distinct bins share a score, full reliability gives only the aggregate identity across those bins.
Kleinberg, Mullainathan, and Raghavan, complete 23-page paper: §§1.1–1.2 define the finite feature-type, group, randomized-bin model and calibration within each group.
Applied Statistics: From Data to Decisions, full chapter: the section “The impossibility: you cannot satisfy them all” treats calibration within groups for real-valued scores and distinguishes the score theorem from its binary-classifier companion.
Depends on
Used by
- Balance for positive and negative outcomes Definition
- Equal base rates admit a constant calibrated score Example
- Perfect prediction permits unequal base rates Example
- Threshold rates can vary despite balanced mean scores Example
- Class-conditional mean risk scores are areas under threshold rates Lemma
- Calibration and both outcome-balance criteria force equal base rates or perfect prediction Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
5 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan, Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores, arXiv:1609.05807v2 (2016), §§1.1–1.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Applied Statistics: From Data to Decisions, MS&E 125, Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making, section ‘The impossibility: you cannot satisfy them all’ (standard reference, not scraped)