Machine LearningCustom and Business Metrics

Custom and Business Metrics

LevelIntermediate

Duration90 mins

TopicCustom and Business Metrics

3 / 5

Business Metric Alignment

Bridging ML Metrics and Business Value

A model with 95% AUC is meaningless if it doesn't move business metrics. Organizations don't care about F1 scores—they care about revenue, customer retention, fraud losses, and operational costs.

The Alignment Problem:

ML teams optimize precision, recall, and AUC. Business stakeholders care about conversion rates, customer lifetime value, and quarterly targets. These two worlds speak different languages, and translation failures cause:

Models that perform well on benchmarks but fail in production
Stakeholder distrust of ML initiatives
Wasted resources on technically excellent but practically useless models

Business metric alignment ensures that improvements in model metrics translate to improvements in business outcomes.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will understand how to map business KPIs to ML metrics, design proxy metrics that correlate with business outcomes, quantify model value in business terms, and communicate ML performance to non-technical stakeholders.

The Translation Challenge

Business objectives and ML metrics exist in different conceptual spaces. Bridging them requires understanding both domains.

Business Language:

"Reduce fraud losses by 20%"
"Increase customer engagement"
"Improve operational efficiency"
"Minimize regulatory risk"

ML Language:

"Improve recall from 0.75 to 0.85"
"Reduce FPR below 5%"
"Achieve AUC > 0.92"
"Minimize log-loss"

The Translation Process:

Decompose business objectives into measurable components
Identify which components ML can influence
Map those components to appropriate ML metrics
Validate that metric improvements correlate with business improvements

Business to ML Metric Mapping Examples
Business Objective	Decomposition	ML Metric	Validation Approach
Reduce fraud losses	Catch more fraud × Avg fraud value	Recall weighted by transaction value	Compare predicted vs actual losses
Increase conversions	More qualified leads × Better targeting	Precision@k for marketing campaigns	A/B test conversion rates
Reduce churn	Early detection × Effective intervention	Recall on churn prediction	Retention rate comparison
Improve efficiency	Fewer manual reviews × Faster processing	Accuracy at fixed FPR	Time/cost per case metrics

Goodhart's Law

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Optimizing for a proxy metric can diverge from the true business objective. Always validate that metric improvements translate to business improvements.

Quantifying Model Value

Translating model performance into business value requires explicit economic modeling.

Components of Model Value:

Direct Value: Revenue generated or costs avoided by correct predictions
Opportunity Cost: Value lost from false negatives or missed opportunities
Operational Cost: Resources consumed by false positives and model operation
Strategic Value: Competitive advantage, customer trust, regulatory compliance

Value Calculation Framework:

$$\text{Model Value} = V_{TPs} - C_{FPs} - C_{FNs} - C_{operation}$$

Where:

$V_{TPs}$ = Value generated by true positive actions
$C_{FPs}$ = Cost of false positive actions
$C_{FNs}$ = Cost of missed opportunities (false negatives)
$C_{operation}$ = Fixed and variable operational costs

value_quantification.py
Python
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
import numpy as np
from dataclasses import dataclass
 
@dataclass
class BusinessValueModel:
    """Encapsulates business value calculations for a classifier."""
    
    # Per-prediction values/costs
    value_per_tp: float      # Revenue/savings from correct positive action
    cost_per_fp: float       # Cost of false alarm actions
    cost_per_fn: float       # Cost of missed opportunity
    value_per_tn: float = 0  # Usually zero (no action taken)
    
    # Operational costs
    cost_per_prediction: float = 0  # Marginal cost per prediction
    fixed_cost: float = 0           # Fixed operational cost
    
    def calculate_value(self, tp, fp, fn, tn):
        """Calculate total business value from confusion matrix."""
        n_predictions = tp + fp + fn + tn
        
        prediction_value = (
            tp * self.value_per_tp +
            tn * self.value_per_tn -
            fp * self.cost_per_fp -
            fn * self.cost_per_fn
        )
        
        operational_cost = (
            self.fixed_cost + 
            n_predictions * self.cost_per_prediction
        )
        
        return {
            'total_value': prediction_value - operational_cost,
            'value_from_tps': tp * self.value_per_tp,
            'cost_from_fps': fp * self.cost_per_fp,
            'cost_from_fns': fn * self.cost_per_fn,
            'operational_cost': operational_cost,
            'value_per_prediction': (prediction_value - operational_cost) / n_predictions
        }
    
    def calculate_roi(self, tp, fp, fn, tn, baseline_value=0):
        """Calculate ROI compared to baseline (e.g., no model)."""
        value = self.calculate_value(tp, fp, fn, tn)
        investment = self.fixed_cost
        return (value['total_value'] - baseline_value) / investment if investment > 0 else float('inf')
 
 
# Example: Fraud detection system
fraud_model = BusinessValueModel(
    value_per_tp=150,      # Avg fraud prevented
    cost_per_fp=10,        # Investigation cost
    cost_per_fn=200,       # Avg fraud loss when missed
    fixed_cost=50000,      # Annual system cost
    cost_per_prediction=0.01  # API/compute cost
)
 
# Monthly confusion matrix
tp, fp, fn, tn = 450, 2000, 50, 97500
 
result = fraud_model.calculate_value(tp, fp, fn, tn)
 
print("Fraud Detection System - Monthly Value Analysis")
print("=" * 50)
print(f"Transactions analyzed: {tp+fp+fn+tn:,}")
print(f"Fraud caught: {tp} (value: ${result['value_from_tps']:, .0f
                        })")
    print(f"False alarms: {fp} (cost: ${result['cost_from_fps']:,.0f})")
    print(f"Fraud missed: {fn} (cost: ${result['cost_from_fns']:,.0f})")
    print(f"Operational cost: ${result['operational_cost']:,.0f}")
    print(f"\nNet Monthly Value: ${result['total_value']:,.0f}")
    print(f"Value per Transaction: ${result['value_per_prediction']:.4f}")

Designing Effective Proxy Metrics

Often, direct business metrics are difficult to optimize:

Delayed feedback: Customer lifetime value takes years to observe
Sparse signals: Fraud is rare; waiting for enough examples is impractical
Attribution complexity: Multiple factors influence business outcomes

Proxy metrics are ML-measurable quantities that correlate with ultimate business objectives.

Properties of Good Proxy Metrics:

Correlated with business outcome: Higher proxy → better business results
Measurable at training time: Available for model optimization
Stable relationship: Correlation persists across time and segments
Actionable: Improvements are achievable through model changes

Proxy Metric Examples by Domain
Business Metric	Challenge	Proxy Metric	Validation
Customer LTV	Takes years	Predicted 90-day spend	Cohort analysis
User satisfaction	Subjective, delayed	Session duration, return rate	Survey correlation
Fraud losses	Rare events	Precision@k on investigations	Actual loss tracking
Conversion	Long sales cycle	Lead score calibration	Win rate by score bucket
Churn prevention	Attribution unclear	Intervention response rate	Randomized experiments

Proxy Metric Validation

Regularly validate that proxy improvements translate to business improvements. Plot proxy metric changes against business metric changes over time. If correlation degrades, revisit proxy design.

Communicating ML Performance to Stakeholders

Technical metrics don't resonate with business stakeholders. Effective communication requires translation into business-relevant terms.

Communication Principles:

Lead with impact: Start with business outcomes, not technical metrics
Provide context: Compare to baselines, benchmarks, and alternatives
Quantify uncertainty: Confidence intervals matter for decisions
Tell a story: Connect technical improvements to business value

Technical Report (Avoid)

•AUC improved from 0.87 to 0.92
•False negative rate reduced by 15%
•Calibration error decreased to 3.2%
•Model inference time: 12ms

Business Report (Preferred)

•Expected to catch $2.1M more fraud annually
•Investigation efficiency improved 23%
•Projected ROI: 340% in first year
•Customer friction reduced (fewer false blocks)

Creating Business Dashboards:

Translate ML outputs into business-friendly dashboards:

Replace "Precision" with "Investigation success rate"
Replace "Recall" with "Fraud catch rate" or "Coverage"
Replace "FPR" with "Customer friction rate"
Show dollar values alongside percentages
Include trend lines and comparisons to targets

Validating Business Alignment

Claims of business value must be validated rigorously. Multiple validation approaches provide confidence:

1. Historical Backtesting

Apply the model to historical data and compare predicted business impact to actual outcomes. Useful for initial validation but subject to look-ahead bias.

2. A/B Testing

Randomly assign users/cases to model vs. baseline and measure business outcomes. Gold standard for causal validation but requires sufficient volume.

3. Shadow Mode Deployment

Run model predictions alongside existing system without taking action. Compare what would have happened to what did happen.

4. Incremental Rollout

Gradually increase model usage while monitoring business metrics. Watch for degradation as coverage expands.

alignment_validation.py
Python
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
 
def analyze_ab_test(control_outcomes, treatment_outcomes,
        metric_name = "conversion_rate"):
    """
    Analyze A / B test results for business metric.
    
    Returns statistical significance and business impact.
    """
    # Compute means
    control_mean = np.mean(control_outcomes)
    treatment_mean = np.mean(treatment_outcomes)
    
    # Relative lift
    lift = (treatment_mean - control_mean) / control_mean * 100
    
    # Statistical test
    t_stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(control_outcomes, treatment_outcomes)
    
    # Confidence interval on difference
    diff = treatment_mean - control_mean
    se = np.sqrt(
        np.var(control_outcomes) / len(control_outcomes) +
        np.var(treatment_outcomes) / len(treatment_outcomes)
    )
    ci_lower = diff - 1.96 * se
    ci_upper = diff + 1.96 * se
 
    significant = p_value < 0.05
 
    return {
        'control_mean': control_mean,
        'treatment_mean': treatment_mean,
        'absolute_lift': diff,
        'relative_lift_pct': lift,
        'p_value': p_value,
        'significant': significant,
        'ci_95': (ci_lower, ci_upper),
        'recommendation': 'Deploy treatment' if significant and lift > 0 
                         else 'Keep control' if significant 
                         else 'Continue testing'
}
 
 
# Example: Testing new fraud model
np.random.seed(42)
 
# Control: Old model(avg $0.15 fraud loss per transaction)
control = np.random.exponential(0.15, 50000)
 
# Treatment: New model(avg $0.12 fraud loss per transaction)
treatment = np.random.exponential(0.12, 50000)
 
result = analyze_ab_test(control, treatment, "fraud_loss_per_txn")
 
print("A/B Test Results: New Fraud Model")
print("=" * 50)
print(f"Control avg loss: ${result['control_mean']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Treatment avg loss: ${result['treatment_mean']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Absolute reduction: ${-result['absolute_lift']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Relative improvement: {-result['relative_lift_pct']:.1f}%")
print(f"P-value: {result['p_value']:.6f}")
print(f"Statistically significant: {result['significant']}")
print(f"95% CI on difference: (${result['ci_95'][0]:.4f}, ${result['ci_95'][1]:.4f})")
print(f"\nRecommendation: {result['recommendation']}")

Common Alignment Pitfalls

Alignment Pitfalls to Avoid

•Optimizing offline metrics only: High AUC doesn't guarantee production impact
•Ignoring downstream effects: Precision improvements may reduce volume and total value
•Assuming linear relationships: 10% metric improvement ≠ 10% business improvement
•Neglecting segment differences: Aggregate improvements may hide segment degradations
•Short-term focus: Optimizing immediate metrics at expense of long-term value
•Ignoring externalities: Model decisions affect customer trust, brand perception

The Full Picture

Business value = Direct model value + Indirect effects + Strategic value - Total costs. Models with lower direct value may still be preferable if they provide better indirect benefits (customer trust, regulatory compliance, operational simplicity).

Summary

Key Takeaways

•Translate explicitly: Map business objectives to ML metrics systematically
•Quantify value: Express model performance in business terms (dollars, customers, risk)
•Design good proxies: When direct metrics are unavailable, create validated proxy metrics
•Communicate effectively: Lead with business impact, not technical metrics
•Validate rigorously: Use A/B tests, backtesting, and incremental rollouts to confirm value

Page Complete

You now understand how to align ML metrics with business objectives. Next, we'll explore multi-objective evaluation for scenarios where multiple, potentially conflicting objectives must be balanced.

3 / 5

Loading learning content...

Machine LearningCustom and Business Metrics

Custom and Business Metrics

LevelIntermediate

Duration90 mins

TopicCustom and Business Metrics

3 / 5

Business Metric Alignment

Bridging ML Metrics and Business Value

A model with 95% AUC is meaningless if it doesn't move business metrics. Organizations don't care about F1 scores—they care about revenue, customer retention, fraud losses, and operational costs.

The Alignment Problem:

Models that perform well on benchmarks but fail in production
Stakeholder distrust of ML initiatives
Wasted resources on technically excellent but practically useless models

Business metric alignment ensures that improvements in model metrics translate to improvements in business outcomes.

What You Will Learn

The Translation Challenge

Business objectives and ML metrics exist in different conceptual spaces. Bridging them requires understanding both domains.

Business Language:

"Reduce fraud losses by 20%"
"Increase customer engagement"
"Improve operational efficiency"
"Minimize regulatory risk"

ML Language:

"Improve recall from 0.75 to 0.85"
"Reduce FPR below 5%"
"Achieve AUC > 0.92"
"Minimize log-loss"

The Translation Process:

Decompose business objectives into measurable components
Identify which components ML can influence
Map those components to appropriate ML metrics
Validate that metric improvements correlate with business improvements

Business to ML Metric Mapping Examples
Business Objective	Decomposition	ML Metric	Validation Approach
Reduce fraud losses	Catch more fraud × Avg fraud value	Recall weighted by transaction value	Compare predicted vs actual losses
Increase conversions	More qualified leads × Better targeting	Precision@k for marketing campaigns	A/B test conversion rates
Reduce churn	Early detection × Effective intervention	Recall on churn prediction	Retention rate comparison
Improve efficiency	Fewer manual reviews × Faster processing	Accuracy at fixed FPR	Time/cost per case metrics

Goodhart's Law

Quantifying Model Value

Translating model performance into business value requires explicit economic modeling.

Components of Model Value:

Direct Value: Revenue generated or costs avoided by correct predictions
Opportunity Cost: Value lost from false negatives or missed opportunities
Operational Cost: Resources consumed by false positives and model operation
Strategic Value: Competitive advantage, customer trust, regulatory compliance

Value Calculation Framework:

$$\text{Model Value} = V_{TPs} - C_{FPs} - C_{FNs} - C_{operation}$$

Where:

$V_{TPs}$ = Value generated by true positive actions
$C_{FPs}$ = Cost of false positive actions
$C_{FNs}$ = Cost of missed opportunities (false negatives)
$C_{operation}$ = Fixed and variable operational costs

value_quantification.py
Python
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
import numpy as np
from dataclasses import dataclass
 
@dataclass
class BusinessValueModel:
    """Encapsulates business value calculations for a classifier."""
    
    # Per-prediction values/costs
    value_per_tp: float      # Revenue/savings from correct positive action
    cost_per_fp: float       # Cost of false alarm actions
    cost_per_fn: float       # Cost of missed opportunity
    value_per_tn: float = 0  # Usually zero (no action taken)
    
    # Operational costs
    cost_per_prediction: float = 0  # Marginal cost per prediction
    fixed_cost: float = 0           # Fixed operational cost
    
    def calculate_value(self, tp, fp, fn, tn):
        """Calculate total business value from confusion matrix."""
        n_predictions = tp + fp + fn + tn
        
        prediction_value = (
            tp * self.value_per_tp +
            tn * self.value_per_tn -
            fp * self.cost_per_fp -
            fn * self.cost_per_fn
        )
        
        operational_cost = (
            self.fixed_cost + 
            n_predictions * self.cost_per_prediction
        )
        
        return {
            'total_value': prediction_value - operational_cost,
            'value_from_tps': tp * self.value_per_tp,
            'cost_from_fps': fp * self.cost_per_fp,
            'cost_from_fns': fn * self.cost_per_fn,
            'operational_cost': operational_cost,
            'value_per_prediction': (prediction_value - operational_cost) / n_predictions
        }
    
    def calculate_roi(self, tp, fp, fn, tn, baseline_value=0):
        """Calculate ROI compared to baseline (e.g., no model)."""
        value = self.calculate_value(tp, fp, fn, tn)
        investment = self.fixed_cost
        return (value['total_value'] - baseline_value) / investment if investment > 0 else float('inf')
 
 
# Example: Fraud detection system
fraud_model = BusinessValueModel(
    value_per_tp=150,      # Avg fraud prevented
    cost_per_fp=10,        # Investigation cost
    cost_per_fn=200,       # Avg fraud loss when missed
    fixed_cost=50000,      # Annual system cost
    cost_per_prediction=0.01  # API/compute cost
)
 
# Monthly confusion matrix
tp, fp, fn, tn = 450, 2000, 50, 97500
 
result = fraud_model.calculate_value(tp, fp, fn, tn)
 
print("Fraud Detection System - Monthly Value Analysis")
print("=" * 50)
print(f"Transactions analyzed: {tp+fp+fn+tn:,}")
print(f"Fraud caught: {tp} (value: ${result['value_from_tps']:, .0f
                        })")
    print(f"False alarms: {fp} (cost: ${result['cost_from_fps']:,.0f})")
    print(f"Fraud missed: {fn} (cost: ${result['cost_from_fns']:,.0f})")
    print(f"Operational cost: ${result['operational_cost']:,.0f}")
    print(f"\nNet Monthly Value: ${result['total_value']:,.0f}")
    print(f"Value per Transaction: ${result['value_per_prediction']:.4f}")

Designing Effective Proxy Metrics

Often, direct business metrics are difficult to optimize:

Delayed feedback: Customer lifetime value takes years to observe
Sparse signals: Fraud is rare; waiting for enough examples is impractical
Attribution complexity: Multiple factors influence business outcomes

Proxy metrics are ML-measurable quantities that correlate with ultimate business objectives.

Properties of Good Proxy Metrics:

Correlated with business outcome: Higher proxy → better business results
Measurable at training time: Available for model optimization
Stable relationship: Correlation persists across time and segments
Actionable: Improvements are achievable through model changes

Proxy Metric Examples by Domain
Business Metric	Challenge	Proxy Metric	Validation
Customer LTV	Takes years	Predicted 90-day spend	Cohort analysis
User satisfaction	Subjective, delayed	Session duration, return rate	Survey correlation
Fraud losses	Rare events	Precision@k on investigations	Actual loss tracking
Conversion	Long sales cycle	Lead score calibration	Win rate by score bucket
Churn prevention	Attribution unclear	Intervention response rate	Randomized experiments

Proxy Metric Validation

Regularly validate that proxy improvements translate to business improvements. Plot proxy metric changes against business metric changes over time. If correlation degrades, revisit proxy design.

Communicating ML Performance to Stakeholders

Technical metrics don't resonate with business stakeholders. Effective communication requires translation into business-relevant terms.

Communication Principles:

Lead with impact: Start with business outcomes, not technical metrics
Provide context: Compare to baselines, benchmarks, and alternatives
Quantify uncertainty: Confidence intervals matter for decisions
Tell a story: Connect technical improvements to business value

Technical Report (Avoid)

•AUC improved from 0.87 to 0.92
•False negative rate reduced by 15%
•Calibration error decreased to 3.2%
•Model inference time: 12ms

Business Report (Preferred)

•Expected to catch $2.1M more fraud annually
•Investigation efficiency improved 23%
•Projected ROI: 340% in first year
•Customer friction reduced (fewer false blocks)

Creating Business Dashboards:

Translate ML outputs into business-friendly dashboards:

Replace "Precision" with "Investigation success rate"
Replace "Recall" with "Fraud catch rate" or "Coverage"
Replace "FPR" with "Customer friction rate"
Show dollar values alongside percentages
Include trend lines and comparisons to targets

Validating Business Alignment

Claims of business value must be validated rigorously. Multiple validation approaches provide confidence:

1. Historical Backtesting

Apply the model to historical data and compare predicted business impact to actual outcomes. Useful for initial validation but subject to look-ahead bias.

2. A/B Testing

Randomly assign users/cases to model vs. baseline and measure business outcomes. Gold standard for causal validation but requires sufficient volume.

3. Shadow Mode Deployment

Run model predictions alongside existing system without taking action. Compare what would have happened to what did happen.

4. Incremental Rollout

Gradually increase model usage while monitoring business metrics. Watch for degradation as coverage expands.

alignment_validation.py
Python
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
 
def analyze_ab_test(control_outcomes, treatment_outcomes,
        metric_name = "conversion_rate"):
    """
    Analyze A / B test results for business metric.
    
    Returns statistical significance and business impact.
    """
    # Compute means
    control_mean = np.mean(control_outcomes)
    treatment_mean = np.mean(treatment_outcomes)
    
    # Relative lift
    lift = (treatment_mean - control_mean) / control_mean * 100
    
    # Statistical test
    t_stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(control_outcomes, treatment_outcomes)
    
    # Confidence interval on difference
    diff = treatment_mean - control_mean
    se = np.sqrt(
        np.var(control_outcomes) / len(control_outcomes) +
        np.var(treatment_outcomes) / len(treatment_outcomes)
    )
    ci_lower = diff - 1.96 * se
    ci_upper = diff + 1.96 * se
 
    significant = p_value < 0.05
 
    return {
        'control_mean': control_mean,
        'treatment_mean': treatment_mean,
        'absolute_lift': diff,
        'relative_lift_pct': lift,
        'p_value': p_value,
        'significant': significant,
        'ci_95': (ci_lower, ci_upper),
        'recommendation': 'Deploy treatment' if significant and lift > 0 
                         else 'Keep control' if significant 
                         else 'Continue testing'
}
 
 
# Example: Testing new fraud model
np.random.seed(42)
 
# Control: Old model(avg $0.15 fraud loss per transaction)
control = np.random.exponential(0.15, 50000)
 
# Treatment: New model(avg $0.12 fraud loss per transaction)
treatment = np.random.exponential(0.12, 50000)
 
result = analyze_ab_test(control, treatment, "fraud_loss_per_txn")
 
print("A/B Test Results: New Fraud Model")
print("=" * 50)
print(f"Control avg loss: ${result['control_mean']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Treatment avg loss: ${result['treatment_mean']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Absolute reduction: ${-result['absolute_lift']:.4f}/txn")
print(f"Relative improvement: {-result['relative_lift_pct']:.1f}%")
print(f"P-value: {result['p_value']:.6f}")
print(f"Statistically significant: {result['significant']}")
print(f"95% CI on difference: (${result['ci_95'][0]:.4f}, ${result['ci_95'][1]:.4f})")
print(f"\nRecommendation: {result['recommendation']}")

Common Alignment Pitfalls

Alignment Pitfalls to Avoid

•Optimizing offline metrics only: High AUC doesn't guarantee production impact
•Ignoring downstream effects: Precision improvements may reduce volume and total value
•Assuming linear relationships: 10% metric improvement ≠ 10% business improvement
•Neglecting segment differences: Aggregate improvements may hide segment degradations
•Short-term focus: Optimizing immediate metrics at expense of long-term value
•Ignoring externalities: Model decisions affect customer trust, brand perception

The Full Picture

Summary

Key Takeaways

•Translate explicitly: Map business objectives to ML metrics systematically
•Quantify value: Express model performance in business terms (dollars, customers, risk)
•Design good proxies: When direct metrics are unavailable, create validated proxy metrics
•Communicate effectively: Lead with business impact, not technical metrics
•Validate rigorously: Use A/B tests, backtesting, and incremental rollouts to confirm value

Page Complete

You now understand how to align ML metrics with business objectives. Next, we'll explore multi-objective evaluation for scenarios where multiple, potentially conflicting objectives must be balanced.

3 / 5