Instance-Level Costs for Nuanced Classifier Evaluation

Kabir Kang, Stephen Mussmann
5/4/2026
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Standard classification treats all errors equally, but in content moderation, medical screening, and safety-critical applications, mistakes on clear-cut cases are far more costly than errors on ambiguous ones. We propose normalized excess cost (NEC), a metric that weights classification errors by per-example costs and reduces to standard error rate when costs are uniform. Costs can derive from annotator vote margins, distance from decision thresholds, or confidence ratings. Across text, image, and tabular benchmarks, we find that NEC is often substantially lower than error rate -- models with 5\% error rate can achieve 1.8\% NEC -- revealing that most mistakes concentrate on ambiguous, low-cost examples. However, incorporating costs into training via loss weighting, sampling strategies, or regression yields inconsistent benefits: improvements appear only when costs are predictable from input features, as in our synthetic control, while real-world datasets show mixed or negligible gains. Our framework provides a practical methodology for deriving and evaluating instance-level misclassification costs, even when cost-sensitive training offers limited benefit.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Cite this paper

@article{kang2026instancelevel,
  title  = {Instance-Level Costs for Nuanced Classifier Evaluation},
  author = {Kabir Kang and Stephen Mussmann},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2605.03135},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03135v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2605.03135.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2605.03135)

Discussion