Valery Manokhin

Valery Manokhin

The Brier score conflates two distinct properties of probabilistic predictions: reliability (calibration error) and resolution (discriminatory power). We introduce the Manokhin Probability Matrix, a BCG-style two-dimensional diagnostic framework that separates them. Classifiers are placed on a 2x2 grid by Spiegelhalter Z-statistic and AUC-ROC expected rank, then assigned to one of four archetypes: Eagle (good on both axes), Bull (strong discrimination, poor calibration), Sloth (well-calibrated, weak discriminator), and Mole (poor on both). Each archetype carries a distinct prescription. We populate the matrix from a large-scale empirical study spanning 21 classifiers, 5 post-hoc calibrators, and 30 real-world binary classification tasks from the TabArena-v0.1 suite. The assignment is unambiguous. CatBoost, TabICL, EBM, TabPFN, GBC, and Random Forest are Eagles. XGBoost, LightGBM, and HGB are Bulls; Venn-Abers calibration cuts log-loss by 6.5 to 12.6% on Bulls but degrades Eagles by 2.1%. SVM, LR, LDA, and the empirical base-rate predictor are Sloths. MLP, KNN, Naive Bayes, and ExtraTrees are Moles. A theoretical asymmetry follows: no order-preserving post-hoc calibrator can add discriminatory power (Proposition 1), so calibration is the fixable part and discrimination is the hard part. The practical rule is direct: do not optimise aggregate Brier score without first decomposing it; optimise discrimination first, then fix calibration post-hoc. Code and raw experimental data are available at https://github.com/valeman/classifier_calibration.

Valery Manokhin

We propose Conformal Seasonal Pools (CSP), a training-free probabilistic time-series forecaster that mixes same-season empirical draws with signed residual draws around a seasonal naive forecast. In an audited rolling-origin benchmark on the six time-series datasets where DeepNPTS was originally evaluated (electricity, exchange_rate, solar_energy, taxi, traffic, wikipedia), CSP-Adaptive significantly outperforms DeepNPTS on every metric we report -- CRPS (per-window paired Wilcoxon $p \approx 4 \times 10^{-10}$), normalized mean quantile loss ($p \approx 7 \times 10^{-10}$), and empirical 95% coverage ($p \approx 8 \times 10^{-45}$, mean 0.89 vs 0.66) -- while running over 500x faster on CPU. Coverage is the most decision-critical of these: a 0.95 nominal interval that contains the truth in only ~66% of cases fails the basic calibration desideratum and would not survive deployment in safety- or decision-critical settings. The failure mode is also more severe than aggregate coverage suggests: in the worst 10% of windows, DeepNPTS's prediction interval covers none of the H forecast horizons -- the entire multi-step trajectory misses the truth at every step simultaneously. This poses serious risk in safety- and decision-critical applications such as healthcare, finance, energy operations, and autonomous systems, where prediction intervals that systematically miss the truth across the entire planning horizon translate directly into misclassified patients, regulatory capital failures, grid imbalances, and safety-case violations. CSP achieves all of this with no learned parameters and no training. We argue training-free conformal samplers should be mandatory baselines when evaluating learned non-parametric forecasters.

Vladimir Vovk, Ivan Petej, Ilia Nouretdinov et al.

Conformal predictive systems are a recent modification of conformal predictors that output, in regression problems, probability distributions for labels of test observations rather than set predictions. The extra information provided by conformal predictive systems may be useful, e.g., in decision making problems. Conformal predictive systems inherit the relative computational inefficiency of conformal predictors. In this paper we discuss two computationally efficient versions of conformal predictive systems, which we call split conformal predictive systems and cross-conformal predictive systems. The main advantage of split conformal predictive systems is their guaranteed validity, whereas for cross-conformal predictive systems validity only holds empirically and in the absence of excessive randomization. The main advantage of cross-conformal predictive systems is their greater predictive efficiency.

Vladimir Vovk, Ilia Nouretdinov, Valery Manokhin et al.

This paper reviews the checkered history of predictive distributions in statistics and discusses two developments, one from recent literature and the other new. The first development is bringing predictive distributions into machine learning, whose early development was so deeply influenced by two remarkable groups at the Institute of Automation and Remote Control. The second development is combining predictive distributions with kernel methods, which were originated by one of those groups, including Emmanuel Braverman.