PreprintCited by 100Machine Learning and AlgorithmsMachine Learning and Data ClassificationStatistical Methods and Inference

Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control

Open access
Angelopoulos, Anastasios N., Bates, Stephen, Candès, Emmanuel J., Jordan, Michael I., Lei, Lihua·2021·arXiv

Abstract

We introduce a framework for calibrating machine learning models so that their predictions satisfy explicit, finite-sample statistical guarantees. Our calibration algorithms work with any underlying model and (unknown) data-generating distribution and do not require model refitting. The framework addresses, among other examples, false discovery rate control in multi-label classification, intersection-over-union control in instance segmentation, and the simultaneous control of the type-1 error of outlier detection and confidence set coverage in classification or regression. Our main insight is to reframe the risk-control problem as multiple hypothesis testing, enabling techniques and mathematical arguments different from those in the previous literature. We use the framework to provide new calibration methods for several core machine learning tasks, with detailed worked examples in computer vision and tabular medical data.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2110.01052

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The algorithm presented herein differs from previous high-probability risk control work: it has a guarantee in expectation, and neither the algorithm nor its analysis share much technical similarity with these previous works.

    “the algorithm presented herein differs greatly: it has a guarantee in expectation, and neither the algorithm nor its analysis share much technical similarity with these previous works.”

    From Conformal Risk Control (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Candès, E. J., Jordan, M. I., & Lei, L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
1641-1662
ISSN
1932-6157 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410803261
Cited by
100
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
23.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Applied Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
model calibration, risk control, finite-sample guarantees, false discovery rate control, multi-label classification, intersection over union, instance segmentation, multiple comparisons, object detection, Detectron2

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review