Loading learning content...
What makes logistic regression special among classifiers isn't just that it classifies—many algorithms do that. What makes it special is that it produces genuine probabilities.
When logistic regression says "70% chance of class 1," this isn't just a confidence score—it's a true probability estimate. If you collect all predictions where the model said 70%, roughly 70% of them should actually be class 1. This property is called calibration, and it's far rarer and more valuable than you might expect.
Probabilistic outputs enable richer decision-making: cost-sensitive classification, uncertainty quantification, risk assessment, and proper combination with other information sources. Understanding this probabilistic interpretation transforms how you think about and deploy logistic regression.
By the end of this page, you will understand: (1) why logistic regression outputs are true probabilities (not just scores), (2) what calibration means and how to measure it, (3) comparison with other classifiers' probability estimates, (4) how to use probabilities for cost-sensitive decision-making, and (5) practical considerations for deploying probabilistic classifiers.
Many classifiers produce numbers between 0 and 1, but not all of these are true probabilities. Understanding this distinction is fundamental.
What Is a True Probability?
A model output $\hat{p}$ is a true (calibrated) probability if:
$$P(Y = 1 | \hat{p} = p) = p$$
In words: among all examples where the model predicts probability $p$, the fraction that actually belong to class 1 is $p$.
What Is a Score?
A score is just a number that ranks predictions by likelihood. Higher scores indicate greater confidence in class 1, but the numerical values don't have direct probabilistic meaning.
Example: An SVM might output "margin = 2.5". This tells you the example is far on the class-1 side of the boundary, but it doesn't mean 92.5% probability or any specific probability.
Why Logistic Regression Produces True Probabilities
Logistic regression is fit by maximum likelihood estimation under a Bernoulli model:
$$P(Y=y | \mathbf{x}) = \hat{p}^y (1-\hat{p})^{1-y}$$
The optimization explicitly finds parameters that make the predicted probabilities match the observed frequencies in training data. This is fundamentally different from optimization objectives like hinge loss (SVM) or squared error that don't directly model probabilities.
| Classifier | Output Type | Naturally Calibrated? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic Regression | Probability | Yes (if well-specified) | MLE under Bernoulli model |
| Decision Trees | Class frequencies | Often poorly calibrated | Can be miscalibrated in leaves |
| Random Forests | Averaged frequencies | Better than trees, still imperfect | Averaging helps |
| SVM | Distance to margin | No (requires Platt scaling) | Not trained for probabilities |
| Naive Bayes | Posterior probability | Often poorly calibrated | Wrong independence assumption |
| Neural Networks | Softmax output | Often miscalibrated | Modern DNNs tend to be overconfident |
Just because a model outputs values between 0 and 1 doesn't make them probabilities. Many methods (sigmoid-squashed margins, softmax outputs) produce values in this range that are NOT calibrated. Always verify calibration before treating outputs as true probabilities.
Calibration is the alignment between predicted probabilities and actual outcomes. A perfectly calibrated model produces predictions where the predicted confidence matches the empirical frequency of the positive class.
Formal Definition
A classifier is perfectly calibrated if for all $p \in [0, 1]$:
$$\mathbb{E}[Y | \hat{P} = p] = p$$
That is, among all predictions with $\hat{p} \approx p$, the proportion of actual positives equals $p$.
Reliability Diagrams (Calibration Curves)
The standard visualization for calibration is the reliability diagram:
A perfectly calibrated model produces a diagonal line from (0, 0) to (1, 1).
Common Miscalibration Patterns
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081
import numpy as npimport matplotlib.pyplot as pltfrom sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegressionfrom sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifierfrom sklearn.svm import SVCfrom sklearn.calibration import calibration_curvefrom sklearn.model_selection import train_test_splitfrom sklearn.datasets import make_classification # Generate datanp.random.seed(42)X, y = make_classification(n_samples=5000, n_features=20, n_informative=10, n_redundant=5, class_sep=0.8, random_state=42)X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.3, random_state=42) # Fit different classifiersclassifiers = { 'Logistic Regression': LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000), 'Random Forest': RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42), 'SVM (Platt Scaling)': SVC(probability=True, random_state=42),} fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 5)) print("Calibration Analysis")print("=" * 60) for i, (name, clf) in enumerate(classifiers.items()): clf.fit(X_train, y_train) if hasattr(clf, 'predict_proba'): prob_pos = clf.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] else: prob_pos = clf.decision_function(X_test) # Compute calibration curve fraction_of_positives, mean_predicted_value = calibration_curve( y_test, prob_pos, n_bins=10, strategy='uniform' ) # Calculate Expected Calibration Error (ECE) bin_counts = np.histogram(prob_pos, bins=10, range=(0, 1))[0] ece = np.sum(bin_counts * np.abs(fraction_of_positives - mean_predicted_value)) / len(prob_pos) print(f"\n{name}:") print(f" Expected Calibration Error (ECE): {ece:.4f}") # Plot ax = axes[i] ax.plot([0, 1], [0, 1], 'k--', label='Perfectly calibrated') ax.plot(mean_predicted_value, fraction_of_positives, 's-', label=f'{name}\nECE={ece:.3f}', markersize=8) ax.fill_between([0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 1], alpha=0.1, color='gray') ax.set_xlabel('Mean Predicted Probability') ax.set_ylabel('Fraction of Positives') ax.set_title(f'{name}\nCalibration Curve') ax.legend(loc='lower right') ax.set_xlim(0, 1) ax.set_ylim(0, 1) ax.set_aspect('equal') ax.grid(True, alpha=0.3) plt.tight_layout()plt.savefig('calibration_analysis.png', dpi=150)plt.show() # Show detailed bin analysis for logistic regressionprint("\n" + "=" * 60)print("Logistic Regression: Detailed Bin Analysis")print("=" * 60) lr = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)lr.fit(X_train, y_train)probs = lr.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] for lo, hi in [(0, 0.2), (0.2, 0.4), (0.4, 0.6), (0.6, 0.8), (0.8, 1.0)]: mask = (probs >= lo) & (probs < hi) if mask.sum() > 0: actual_rate = y_test[mask].mean() mean_pred = probs[mask].mean() print(f" Bin [{lo:.1f}, {hi:.1f}): n={mask.sum():>4}, predicted={mean_pred:.3f}, actual={actual_rate:.3f}")The Expected Calibration Error summarizes calibration in a single number. Lower ECE means better calibration. ECE is the weighted average of |predicted - actual| across bins, where weights are proportional to bin sizes. ECE = 0 means perfect calibration.
The calibration of logistic regression isn't accidental—it follows directly from the mathematical framework.
Maximum Likelihood and Calibration
Logistic regression minimizes the negative log-likelihood:
$$\mathcal{L} = -\sum_{i=1}^n \left[ y_i \log \hat{p}_i + (1-y_i) \log(1-\hat{p}_i) \right]$$
At the optimum, the first-order conditions (gradient equals zero) require:
$$\sum_{i=1}^n (\hat{p}_i - y_i) = 0$$
This means the average predicted probability equals the average actual outcome (the overall class proportion). This is a global calibration constraint.
More strongly, for each feature $j$:
$$\sum_{i=1}^n (\hat{p}i - y_i) x{ij} = 0$$
This ensures that predictions are calibrated conditional on each feature's value—a much stronger form of calibration.
When Calibration Can Fail
Despite the theoretical guarantee, logistic regression can be miscalibrated when:
Comparison with Other Methods
Decision Trees: Predict the class proportion in each leaf. With small leaves, these frequencies can be noisy (e.g., 1/3 or 2/5), leading to poor calibration. Ensemble methods like Random Forests help by averaging.
SVMs: Trained to maximize margin, not to produce probabilities. Platt scaling fits a sigmoid to convert margins to probabilities, but this is a post-hoc fix, not native calibration.
Neural Networks: Despite using cross-entropy loss (like logistic regression), modern deep networks are often overconfident. This is an active research area; hypotheses include high capacity, learning dynamics, and batch normalization effects.
In domains where probability estimates matter (medicine, finance, risk assessment), logistic regression's natural calibration is a significant advantage. While other models might have slightly higher accuracy, their probability estimates often require additional calibration steps that logistic regression doesn't need.
When a classifier produces miscalibrated probabilities, we can apply post-hoc recalibration to fix them. These methods transform the model's outputs to improve calibration without retraining the base model.
Platt Scaling
Fit a logistic regression on the model's outputs:
$$\hat{p}_{\text{calibrated}} = \sigma(A \cdot f(\mathbf{x}) + B)$$
where $f(\mathbf{x})$ is the original model's score (or log-odds), and $A$, $B$ are learned from a held-out calibration set.
This is equivalent to fitting a logistic regression with the original score as the only feature.
Isotonic Regression
Fit a non-decreasing piecewise constant function that maps scores to calibrated probabilities:
$$\hat{p}_{\text{calibrated}} = g(f(\mathbf{x}))$$
where $g$ is learned to minimize squared error while maintaining monotonicity.
Isotonic regression is more flexible than Platt scaling but requires more data and can overfit.
Temperature Scaling (for neural networks)
Divide logits by a learned temperature $T$ before softmax:
$$\hat{p}_{\text{calibrated}} = \text{softmax}(\mathbf{z} / T)$$
Where $T > 1$ softens probabilities (reducing overconfidence) and $T < 1$ sharpens them.
When to Apply Recalibration
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182
import numpy as npimport matplotlib.pyplot as pltfrom sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegressionfrom sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifierfrom sklearn.calibration import CalibratedClassifierCV, calibration_curvefrom sklearn.model_selection import train_test_splitfrom sklearn.datasets import make_classification # Generate datanp.random.seed(42)X, y = make_classification(n_samples=5000, n_features=20, n_informative=10, class_sep=0.7, random_state=42) # Split into train, calibration, and test setsX_train, X_temp, y_train, y_temp = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.4, random_state=42)X_cal, X_test, y_cal, y_test = train_test_split(X_temp, y_temp, test_size=0.5, random_state=42) print("Recalibration Methods Comparison")print("=" * 60)print(f"Training set: {len(X_train)}, Calibration set: {len(X_cal)}, Test set: {len(X_test)}") # Train a Random Forest (typically overconfident)rf = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42)rf.fit(X_train, y_train) # Apply different calibration methodscalibrated_models = { 'Uncalibrated': rf, 'Platt Scaling': CalibratedClassifierCV(rf, method='sigmoid', cv='prefit'), 'Isotonic Regression': CalibratedClassifierCV(rf, method='isotonic', cv='prefit'),} # Fit calibrated versions on calibration setcalibrated_models['Platt Scaling'].fit(X_cal, y_cal)calibrated_models['Isotonic Regression'].fit(X_cal, y_cal) fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 5)) for i, (name, model) in enumerate(calibrated_models.items()): probs = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] # Calibration curve fraction_pos, mean_pred = calibration_curve(y_test, probs, n_bins=10) # ECE bin_counts = np.histogram(probs, bins=10, range=(0, 1))[0] ece = np.sum(bin_counts * np.abs(fraction_pos - mean_pred)) / len(probs) print(f"\n{name}: ECE = {ece:.4f}") ax = axes[i] ax.plot([0, 1], [0, 1], 'k--', label='Perfect') ax.plot(mean_pred, fraction_pos, 's-', markersize=8, label=f'ECE={ece:.3f}') ax.set_xlabel('Mean Predicted Probability') ax.set_ylabel('Fraction of Positives') ax.set_title(name) ax.legend(loc='lower right') ax.set_xlim(0, 1) ax.set_ylim(0, 1) ax.set_aspect('equal') ax.grid(True, alpha=0.3) plt.suptitle('Effect of Recalibration on Random Forest', fontsize=14)plt.tight_layout()plt.savefig('recalibration_demo.png', dpi=150)plt.show() # Compare logistic regression (already calibrated) vs RFprint("\n" + "=" * 60)print("Logistic Regression vs Random Forest Calibration")print("=" * 60) lr = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)lr.fit(X_train, y_train)lr_probs = lr.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1]rf_probs = rf.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] for name, probs in [('Logistic Regression', lr_probs), ('Random Forest', rf_probs)]: fraction_pos, mean_pred = calibration_curve(y_test, probs, n_bins=10) bin_counts = np.histogram(probs, bins=10, range=(0, 1))[0] ece = np.sum(bin_counts * np.abs(fraction_pos - mean_pred)) / len(probs) print(f"{name}: ECE = {ece:.4f}")Never use training data for recalibration—this leads to overfitting on training set calibration rather than true calibration. Always use a separate calibration set or cross-validation. With limited data, cross-validated calibration (cv='prefit' with separate fold) is preferred.
Calibrated probabilities enable optimal decision-making when misclassification costs are unequal. This is one of the most powerful practical applications of probabilistic classifiers.
The Optimal Decision Rule
With costs:
The Bayes-optimal decision is:
$$\hat{y} = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } \hat{p} > \frac{C_{10}}{C_{01} + C_{10}} \ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$
The optimal threshold is $\tau^* = \frac{C_{10}}{C_{01} + C_{10}}$.
Examples
Equal costs ($C_{01} = C_{10}$): $\tau^* = 0.5$ (standard threshold)
False negatives 10× worse ($C_{01} = 10, C_{10} = 1$): $\tau^* = \frac{1}{11} \approx 0.09$. Classify as positive unless very confident it's negative.
False positives 10× worse ($C_{01} = 1, C_{10} = 10$): $\tau^* = \frac{10}{11} \approx 0.91$. Classify as positive only when very confident.
Expected Cost Minimization
The expected cost of predicting $\hat{y}$ when true probability is $p$:
Predict 1 when $(1-p) \cdot C_{10} < p \cdot C_{01}$, which gives the threshold above.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475
import numpy as npfrom sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegressionfrom sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrixfrom sklearn.datasets import make_classificationfrom sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split # Generate data (medical diagnosis scenario)np.random.seed(42)X, y = make_classification(n_samples=2000, n_features=10, n_informative=5, class_sep=1.0, random_state=42)X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.3, random_state=42) # Fit logistic regressionmodel = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)model.fit(X_train, y_train)probabilities = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] def evaluate_at_threshold(y_true, probs, threshold, C_01, C_10): """Evaluate predictions at given threshold with costs.""" predictions = (probs >= threshold).astype(int) tn, fp, fn, tp = confusion_matrix(y_true, predictions).ravel() total_cost = fn * C_01 + fp * C_10 accuracy = (tp + tn) / len(y_true) return { 'threshold': threshold, 'TP': tp, 'FP': fp, 'TN': tn, 'FN': fn, 'accuracy': accuracy, 'total_cost': total_cost, 'avg_cost': total_cost / len(y_true) } # Scenario 1: Disease screening (false negatives are bad - miss sick patient)C_01_medical = 10 # Cost of missing diseaseC_10_medical = 1 # Cost of unnecessary follow-up tests optimal_threshold_medical = C_10_medical / (C_01_medical + C_10_medical) print("Cost-Sensitive Decision Making")print("=" * 70)print("\nScenario 1: Medical Screening")print(f" Cost of false negative (miss disease): {C_01_medical}")print(f" Cost of false positive (unnecessary test): {C_10_medical}")print(f" Optimal threshold: {optimal_threshold_medical:.4f}") thresholds_to_test = [0.1, 0.3, optimal_threshold_medical, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9] print(f"\n{'Threshold':>10} | {'TP':>5} | {'FP':>5} | {'TN':>5} | {'FN':>5} | {'Accuracy':>8} | {'AvgCost':>8}")print("-" * 70) for t in thresholds_to_test: result = evaluate_at_threshold(y_test, probabilities, t, C_01_medical, C_10_medical) marker = " ← optimal" if abs(t - optimal_threshold_medical) < 0.01 else "" print(f"{t:>10.3f} | {result['TP']:>5} | {result['FP']:>5} | {result['TN']:>5} | {result['FN']:>5} | {result['accuracy']:>7.1%} | {result['avg_cost']:>8.3f}{marker}") # Scenario 2: Spam filter (false positives are bad - lose important email)C_01_spam = 1 # Cost of spam in inboxC_10_spam = 20 # Cost of losing legitimate email optimal_threshold_spam = C_10_spam / (C_01_spam + C_10_spam) print("\n" + "=" * 70)print("Scenario 2: Spam Filtering")print(f" Cost of false negative (spam in inbox): {C_01_spam}")print(f" Cost of false positive (lose real email): {C_10_spam}")print(f" Optimal threshold: {optimal_threshold_spam:.4f}") print(f"\n{'Threshold':>10} | {'TP':>5} | {'FP':>5} | {'TN':>5} | {'FN':>5} | {'Accuracy':>8} | {'AvgCost':>8}")print("-" * 70) for t in [0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, optimal_threshold_spam, 0.95]: result = evaluate_at_threshold(y_test, probabilities, t, C_01_spam, C_10_spam) marker = " ← optimal" if abs(t - optimal_threshold_spam) < 0.02 else "" print(f"{t:>10.3f} | {result['TP']:>5} | {result['FP']:>5} | {result['TN']:>5} | {result['FN']:>5} | {result['accuracy']:>7.1%} | {result['avg_cost']:>8.3f}{marker}")Costs can represent any relative harm: utility loss, risk, inconvenience, or even raw counts if you want 'miss no positives.' The ratio C₁₀/C₀₁ is what matters. If missing a positive is 10× worse than a false alarm, set C₀₁ = 10, C₁₀ = 1 (or any 10:1 ratio).
Probabilistic outputs provide uncertainty estimates that reveal how confident the model is in its predictions. This is crucial for high-stakes applications where knowing what we don't know matters.
Types of Uncertainty
Logistic regression captures aleatoric uncertainty (irreducible noise in the data-generating process) but not epistemic uncertainty (model uncertainty due to limited data or model choice).
Aleatoric Uncertainty: Intrinsic noise. Even with perfect knowledge, outcomes have randomness. Logistic regression captures this through probabilities near 0.5—the model says "this could go either way."
Epistemic Uncertainty: Knowledge gaps. With more data, we could resolve this uncertainty. Standard logistic regression doesn't quantify this, but Bayesian logistic regression does (through posterior uncertainty on parameters).
Using Uncertainty in Practice
Flagging Low-Confidence Predictions: Route predictions with $0.4 < \hat{p} < 0.6$ to human review.
Abstaining from Prediction: Refuse to classify when $|\hat{p} - 0.5| < \epsilon$.
Confidence Intervals: With enough data, bootstrap resampling can give confidence intervals on predictions.
Expected Entropy: $H = -p \log p - (1-p) \log(1-p)$ measures prediction uncertainty. High entropy → uncertain.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104
import numpy as npimport matplotlib.pyplot as pltfrom sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegressionfrom sklearn.datasets import make_classificationfrom sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split # Generate datanp.random.seed(42)X, y = make_classification(n_samples=1000, n_features=5, n_informative=3, class_sep=1.0, random_state=42)X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.3, random_state=42) model = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)model.fit(X_train, y_train)probabilities = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] def entropy(p): """Binary entropy function.""" eps = 1e-15 p = np.clip(p, eps, 1 - eps) return -p * np.log2(p) - (1 - p) * np.log2(1 - p) # Analyze predictions by confidence levelentropies = entropy(probabilities)confidences = np.abs(probabilities - 0.5) * 2 # 0 to 1 scale (0=uncertain, 1=confident) print("Uncertainty Analysis")print("=" * 60) # Group by confidencebins = [(0, 0.3), (0.3, 0.6), (0.6, 0.8), (0.8, 1.0)]labels = ['Very Uncertain', 'Uncertain', 'Confident', 'Very Confident'] print(f"\n{'Confidence Level':<20} | {'Count':>6} | {'Accuracy':>10} | {'Mean Entropy':>12}")print("-" * 60) for (lo, hi), label in zip(bins, labels): mask = (confidences >= lo) & (confidences < hi) if mask.sum() > 0: predictions = (probabilities[mask] > 0.5).astype(int) acc = (predictions == y_test[mask]).mean() mean_ent = entropies[mask].mean() print(f"{label:<20} | {mask.sum():>6} | {acc:>10.2%} | {mean_ent:>12.4f}") # Visualizationfig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 4)) # Plot 1: Probability distributionax1 = axes[0]ax1.hist(probabilities[y_test==0], bins=20, alpha=0.7, label='Class 0', color='blue')ax1.hist(probabilities[y_test==1], bins=20, alpha=0.7, label='Class 1', color='red')ax1.set_xlabel('Predicted Probability')ax1.set_ylabel('Count')ax1.set_title('Distribution of Predicted Probabilities')ax1.axvline(x=0.5, color='black', linestyle='--')ax1.legend() # Plot 2: Accuracy vs Confidenceax2 = axes[1]conf_bins = np.linspace(0, 1, 11)conf_accs = []conf_centers = []for i in range(len(conf_bins)-1): mask = (confidences >= conf_bins[i]) & (confidences < conf_bins[i+1]) if mask.sum() >= 10: preds = (probabilities[mask] > 0.5).astype(int) conf_accs.append((preds == y_test[mask]).mean()) conf_centers.append((conf_bins[i] + conf_bins[i+1]) / 2) ax2.plot(conf_centers, conf_accs, 'o-', markersize=8)ax2.set_xlabel('Confidence (|p - 0.5| × 2)')ax2.set_ylabel('Accuracy')ax2.set_title('Accuracy vs Confidence')ax2.set_xlim(0, 1)ax2.set_ylim(0.5, 1.0)ax2.grid(True, alpha=0.3) # Plot 3: Entropy distributionax3 = axes[2]ax3.hist(entropies[y_test==0], bins=20, alpha=0.7, label='Class 0', color='blue')ax3.hist(entropies[y_test==1], bins=20, alpha=0.7, label='Class 1', color='red')ax3.set_xlabel('Entropy (bits)')ax3.set_ylabel('Count')ax3.set_title('Distribution of Prediction Entropy')ax3.legend() plt.tight_layout()plt.savefig('uncertainty_analysis.png', dpi=150)plt.show() # Selective prediction: abstain on uncertain casesprint("\n" + "=" * 60)print("Selective Prediction (Abstaining on Uncertain Cases)")print("=" * 60) for abstain_threshold in [0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3]: confident_mask = confidences >= abstain_threshold n_predict = confident_mask.sum() if n_predict > 0: preds = (probabilities[confident_mask] > 0.5).astype(int) acc = (preds == y_test[confident_mask]).mean() coverage = n_predict / len(y_test) print(f"Abstain if confidence < {abstain_threshold:.1f}: " f"Coverage = {coverage:.1%}, Accuracy = {acc:.1%}")For a well-calibrated model, predictions with higher confidence should have higher accuracy. If this relationship doesn't hold, the model may be miscalibrated or there's a fundamental issue with the data quality at certain prediction levels. This accuracy-confidence alignment is a sanity check for probabilistic predictions.
Deploying a probabilistic classifier like logistic regression requires careful attention to how probabilities will be used and how well they'll hold up in production.
Calibration Monitoring
Calibration can degrade over time due to:
Regularly plot calibration curves on recent predictions to detect drift.
Probability Reporting Guidelines
Threshold Selection in Production
The optimal threshold depends on:
Often, you'll expose the probability and let the business layer apply a threshold based on use-case-specific costs.
Logging for Accountability
Always log:
This enables post-hoc calibration analysis, debugging, and regulatory compliance.
Keep full probability precision through your decision pipeline. A policy like 'treat >70% as definite yes' should be applied at the final decision point, not encoded in the probability output. Different downstream uses may need different thresholds.
We've explored the probabilistic interpretation of logistic regression in depth—from the nature of calibrated probabilities to their practical applications in decision-making and deployment. Let's consolidate the essential insights:
Module Complete:
You've now completed a comprehensive exploration of the Logistic Regression Model. From the sigmoid function through log-odds interpretation, model parameters, decision boundaries, and probabilistic interpretation—you have a deep, principled understanding of this foundational classifier.
The next module, Maximum Likelihood Estimation, will dive deeper into the optimization process: deriving the likelihood function, understanding why there's no closed-form solution, and examining efficient algorithms for finding optimal parameters.
You now have mastery of the logistic regression model from every angle—mathematical, geometric, and probabilistic. This understanding forms the foundation for everything from advanced classification methods to neural networks for classification.