✔️ Linting Passed

All linting checks passed. Your pull request is in excellent shape! ☀️

_{Generated for commit: d214d32. Link to the linter CI: here}

I think I'm fine with the name. I was looking if can have the word counts in the name of the function but it starts to be really long. So I would be OK with the proposed name.

@adrinjalali There is an issue with numpydoc validation in the binary_classification_curve function, the error is RT03: Return value has no description. Do you know why this is? I already documented the return value of the function.

When you look at the CI log, this is the error, not the return:

[gw0] linux -- Python 3.12.7 /usr/share/miniconda/envs/testvenv/bin/python
810         Decreasing score values.
811 
812     Examples
813     -------
814     >>> import numpy as np
815     >>> from sklearn.metrics import binary_classification_curve
816     >>> y_true = np.array([0, 0, 1, 1])
817     >>> y_scores = np.array([0.1, 0.4, 0.35, 0.8])
818     >>> fps, tps, thresholds = binary_classification_curve(y_true, y_scores)
819     >>> fps
Expected:
    array([0, 1, 1, 2])
Got:
    array([0., 1., 1., 2.])

You just need to fix the output to floats

I wonder if binary_classification_curve is the best name though. Maybe confusion_matrix_curve or binary_confusion_matrix_curve would be more explicit. What do you think @glemaitre @adrinjalali ?

After some discussion with @glemaitre and @ogrisel, we converged toward confusion_matrix_at_thresholds (with or without final "s") or binary_confusion_matrix_at_threshold.

I tested with both and I find the second option a bit too long since it makes all calls to this function being multi-line, hence hurting the readability a bit. Since a confusion matrix per threshold doesn't make sense for multiclass (with a single threshold as we use to do in sklearn) it didn't feel that necessary.

So in the end I went for confusion_matrix_at_thresholds.

Doc's failing @jeremiedbb

Doc's failing

Just need to update the import in plot_confusion_matrix.py

Actually, still one last comment we may want to address here:

Do we want to amend the tests names (e.g., test_binary_clf_curve_multiclass_error) to use the new name?

@adrinjalali or @jeremiedbb feel free to merge if you're happy!