Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A generalized bias-variance decomposition applicable to a... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A generalized bias-variance decomposition applicable to a variety of loss functions, including 0-1 loss, is available.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The standard decomposition is limited to squared loss.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Different inference tasks and stakes call for different loss functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Domingos (2000) offers a generalization of the bias-variance decomposition that applies to a variety of loss functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Domingos' generalization preserves the bias-variance *labels* but loses their epistemic interpretability under 0-1 loss, making it nominally rather than substantively general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under 0-1 loss, bias and variance terms can simultaneously increase together, violating the foundational tradeoff structure the decomposition was meant to illuminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A decomposition that requires redefining 'bias' and 'variance' relative to each loss function yields family-relative, not universal, concepts—undermining the claim of genuine generalization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's grue-like concerns about projectibility apply here: concepts redefined per loss function lack the entrenchment needed to support inductive inference across modeling contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    A decomposition that requires redefining 'bias' and 'variance' relative to each ...Different inference tasks and stakes call for different loss functions.Domingos (2000) offers a generalization of the bias-variance decomposition that ...Domingos' generalization preserves the bias-variance *labels* but loses their ep...
    +3 moreShow less
    Goodman's grue-like concerns about projectibility apply here: concepts redefined...The standard decomposition is limited to squared loss.Under 0-1 loss, bias and variance terms can simultaneously increase together, vi...

    Similar

    Domingos (2000) offers a generalization of the bias-variance decomposi...94%The standard bias-variance decomposition does not hold under all loss ...87%The bias-variance decomposition is derived specifically from squared l...87%Under 0-1 loss, bias and variance combine multiplicatively rather than...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bounded-rationality
    View source passageHide passage
    Viewed from the perspective of the bias-variance trade-off, the ability to make accurate predictions from sparse data suggests that variance is the dominant source of error but that our cognitive system often manages to keep these errors within reasonable limits (Gigerenzer & Brighton 2009). Indeed, Gigerenzer and Brighton make a stronger argument, stating that “the bias-variance dilemma shows formally why a mind can be better off with an adaptive toolbox of biased, specialized heuristics” (
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit