Protocol
Calibration, Shift and Model Explanations
Audit a model whose average accuracy remains stable while calibration or subgroup performance deteriorates. Write a bounded robustness claim supported by the measured shift cases.
45–80 active hours60–90 min sessionsAdvanced
Mastery contract
Specialization · Standard 1.0 · Audit a model whose average accuracy remains stable while calibration or subgroup performance deteriorates. Write a bounded robustness claim supported by the measured shift cases.
Loading your learning records…
Reasoning — not yet passed
Explain calibration, discrimination and proper scoring separately, with a concrete counterexample.
Reliable implementation — not yet passed
Calibration is fit without test labels and metrics handle empty bins and extreme probabilities.
Reproducible experiment — not yet passed
Shift scenarios and severity are specified before evaluation; uncertainty and sample counts accompany every slice.
Defense and handoff — not yet passed
Use calibration and shift measurements to justify a monitoring or abstention threshold, and give an explicit confounding counterexample to causal feature-attribution claims.
All four criteria must pass. Activity completion does not satisfy them.
An independent reviewer reruns your work and varies something you did not rehearse: a fresh input, a different working directory, or a declared edge case.
Pilot decisions are provisional, not external credentials. For an appeal or sensitive artifact, contact your designated pilot operator with the submission ID. Export your assessment history.
What you will do
6 total
Derive Brier score and log-loss on a binary fixture; explain how a calibrated low-resolution predictor can still be uninformative.
Implement calibration diagnostics and a train/validation-fitted calibration transform; compute permutation importance with a frozen fitted model.
Compare original and calibrated predictions under 3 prespecified shifts; report log loss, Brier score, discrimination and bin sample counts.
Debug test-set calibration fitting and misleading importance from correlated features; add a paired-feature counterexample.
Write a 500–900 word technical report linking the reasoning, code, measurements, and limitations; include the project decision below.
Assess all 4 mastery criteria against saved artifacts, request an independent review, and repeat each failed criterion on a fresh example.
Essentials
A reading session alone never satisfies a mastery criterion.
Store source references, assumptions, and artifact paths beside every result.
Keep an untouched check case that differs from the worked example.
Record all attempts, including failures and results that contradict your prediction.
Use the stated comparison conditions; document every deviation before drawing a conclusion.
Protocol guardrails
Do
- +State the expected result before running the comparison.
- +Keep one minimal reproducible failing case when debugging.
- +Record environment versions and the exact command used.
- +Compare explanations with saved intermediate values.
- +Ask a reviewer to challenge the weakest assumption.
Don't
- ×Do not copy a worked solution and present it as an independent implementation.
- ×Do not tune against held-out evaluation outcomes.
- ×Do not report only the best seed or discard inconvenient runs.
- ×Do not equate elapsed hours or a completed run with a passed assessment.
- ×Do not conceal reduced-scale experiments behind claims about the original full-scale result.
Protocol authorship
Written by NuthinButta as instructional design. The teaching sources are the official references linked in each milestone; the exercises, workload and pass thresholds are ours, not their authors'.