PreprintCited by 3Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceMachine Learning and Algorithms

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Calibration tests beyond classification

Open access

Abstract

Most supervised machine learning tasks are subject to irreducible prediction errors. Probabilistic predictive models address this limitation by providing probability distributions that represent a belief over plausible targets, rather than point estimates. Such models can be a valuable tool in decision-making under uncertainty, provided that the model output is meaningful and interpretable. Calibrated models guarantee that the probabilistic predictions are neither over- nor under-confident. In the machine learning literature, different measures and statistical tests have been proposed and studied for evaluating the calibration of classification models. For regression problems, however, research has been focused on a weaker condition of calibration based on predicted quantiles for real-valued targets. In this paper, we propose the first framework that unifies calibration evaluation and tests for general probabilistic predictive models. It applies to any such model, including classification and regression models of arbitrary dimension. Furthermore, the framework generalizes existing measures and provides a more intuitive reformulation of a recently proposed framework for calibration in multi-class classification. In particular, we reformulate and generalize the kernel calibration error, its estimators, and hypothesis tests using scalar-valued kernels, and evaluate the calibration of real-valued regression problems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2210.13355

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. M. A. Arcones and E. Giné. On the bootstrap of U and V statistics. The Annals of Statistics , 20(2): 655-674, 1992.
  2. C. Berg, J. P. R. Christensen, and P. Ressel. Harmonic Analysis on Semigroups . Springer New York, 1984.
  3. J. Bröcker. Reliability, sufficiency, and the decomposition of proper scores. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society , 135(643):1512-1519, July 2009.
  4. J. Bröcker and L. A. Smith. Increasing the reliability of reliability diagrams. Weather and Forecasting , 22(3):651-661, June 2007.
  5. Y. Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and A. Tannenbaum. Optimal transport for Gaussian mixture models. IEEE Access , 7:6269-6278, 2019.
  6. Y. Chen, J. Ye, and J. Li. Aggregated Wasserstein distance and state registration for hidden Markov models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 42(9):2133-2147, September 2020.
  7. A. Christmann and I. Steinwart. Universal Kernels on Non-Standard Input Spaces. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 23, 2010.
  8. K. Chwialkowski, A. Ramdas, D. Sejdinovic, and A. Gretton. Fast two-sample testing with analytic representations of probability measures. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 1981-1989, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. MIT Press.
  9. C. Deledalle, S. Parameswaran, and T. Q. Nguyen. Image denoising with generalized Gaussian mixture model patch priors. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 11(4):2568-2609, January 2018.
  10. J. Delon and A. Desolneux. A Wasserstein-type distance in the space of Gaussian mixture models. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 13(2):936-970, January 2020.
  11. M. Fasiolo, S. N. Wood, M. Zaffran, R. Nedellec, and Y. Goude. Fast calibrated additive quantile regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association , pp. 1-11, March 2020.
  12. J. H. Friedman. A tree-structured approach to nonparametric multiple regression. In Lecture Notes in Mathematics , pp. 5-22. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1979.
  13. J. H. Friedman. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. The Annals of Statistics , 19(1):1-67, 1991.
  14. J. H. Friedman, E. Grosse, and W. Stuetzle. Multidimensional additive spline approximation. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing , 4(2):291-301, June 1983.
  15. K. Fukumizu, F. R. Bach, and M. I. Jordan. Dimensionality reduction for supervised learning with reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 5(Jan):73-99, 2004.
  16. K. Fukumizu, A. Gretton, X. Sun, and B. Schölkopf. Kernel measures of conditional dependence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20 , pp. 489-496. 2008.
  17. K. Fukumizu, L. Song, and A. Gretton. Kernel Bayes' rule: Bayesian inference with positive definite kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 14(82):3753-3783, 2013.
  18. M. Gelbrich. On a formula for the l 2 Wasserstein metric between measures on Euclidean and Hilbert spaces. Mathematische Nachrichten , 147(1):185-203, 1990.
  19. A. Genevay, M. Cuturi, G. Peyré, and F. R. Bach. Stochastic optimization for large-scale optimal transport. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 , pp. 3440-3448. 2016.
  20. X. Glorot and Y. Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 9 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 249-256. PMLR, 5 2010.
  21. E. Gómez, M. A. Gómez-Viilegas, and J. M. Marín. A multivariate generalization of the power exponential family of distributions. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods , 27(3): 589-600, January 1998.
  22. E. Gómez-Sánchez-Manzano, M. A. Gómez-Villegas, and J. M. Marín. Multivariate exponential power distributions as mixtures of normal distributions with Bayesian applications. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods , 37(6):972-985, February 2008.
  23. A. Gretton, K. Borgwardt, M. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. J. Smola. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 , pp. 513-520. 2007.
  24. A. Gretton, K. Fukumizu, Z. Harchaoui, and B. K. Sriperumbudur. A fast, consistent kernel twosample test. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 , pp. 673-681. 2009.
  25. F. K. Gustafsson, M. Danelljan, and T. B. Schön. Evaluating scalable Bayesian deep learning methods for robust computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , 2020.
  26. Y. H. S. Ho and S. M. S. Lee. Calibrated interpolated confidence intervals for population quantiles. Biometrika , 92(1):234-241, March 2005.
  27. W. Hoeffding. A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 19(3):293-325, September 1948.
  28. H. Hotelling. The generalization of student's ratio. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 2(3): 360-378, August 1931.
  29. M. Innes. Flux: Elegant machine learning with Julia. Journal of Open Source Software , 3(25):602, May 2018.
  30. W. Jitkrittum, Z. Szabó, K. P. Chwialkowski, and A. Gretton. Interpretable distribution features with maximum testing power. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 , pp. 181-189. 2016.
  31. N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan. Continuous univariate distributions: Vol. 1 . Wiley, New York, 2nd edition, 1994.
  32. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR (Poster) , 2015.
  33. V. Kuleshov, N. Fenner, and S. Ermon. Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using calibrated regression. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 2796-2804. PMLR, 7 2018.
  34. M. Kull, T. Silva Filho, and P. Flach. Beta calibration: a well-founded and easily implemented improvement on logistic calibration for binary classifiers. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 54 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 623-631. PMLR, 4 2017.
  35. M. Kull, M. Perello Nieto, M. Kängsepp, T. Silva Filho, H. Song, and P. Flach. Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multi-class probabilities with Dirichlet calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 , pp. 12316-12326. 2019.
  36. A. Kumar, S. Sarawagi, and U. Jain. Trainable calibration measures for neural networks from kernel mean embeddings. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 2805-2814. PMLR, 7 2018.
  37. C. A. Micchelli and M. Pontil. On learning vector-valued functions. Neural Computation , 17(1): 177-204, January 2005.
  38. C. A. Micchelli, Y. Xu, and H. Zhang. Universal Kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 7 (95):2651-2667, 2006. ISSN 1533-7928.
  39. A. Müller. Integral probability metrics and their generating classes of functions. Advances in Applied Probability , 29(2):429-443, June 1997.
  40. M. P. Naeini, G. Cooper, and M. Hauskrecht. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using Bayesian binning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2015.
  41. J. Park and K. Muandet. A measure-theoretic approach to kernel conditional mean embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pp. 21247-21259, 2020.
  42. G. Peyré and M. Cuturi. Computational optimal transport. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 11(5-6):355-607, 2019.
  43. J. Platt. Probabilities for SV Machines , pp. 61-73. MIT Press, 2000.
  44. Y. Ren, J. Zhu, J. Li, and Y . Luo. Conditional generative moment-matching networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 , pp. 2928-2936. 2016.
  45. M. Rueda, S. Martínez-Puertas, H. Martínez-Puertas, and A. Arcos. Calibration methods for estimating quantiles. Metrika , 66(3):355-371, December 2006.
  46. R. J. Serfling (ed.). Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., November 1980.
  47. H. Song, T. Diethe, M. Kull, and P. Flach. Distribution calibration for regression. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 5897-5906. PMLR, 6 2019.
  48. L. Song, J. Huang, A. J. Smola, and K. Fukumizu. Hilbert space embeddings of conditional distributions with applications to dynamical systems. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning , ICML '09, pp. 961-968. Association for Computing Machinery, 2009.
  49. L. Song, K. Fukumizu, and A. Gretton. Kernel embeddings of conditional distributions: A unified kernel framework for nonparametric inference in graphical models. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 30(4):98-111, July 2013.
  50. B. K. Sriperumbudur, K. Fukumizu, and G. R.G. Lanckriet. Universality, characteristic kernels and RKHS embedding of measures. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12(70):2389-2410, 2011.
  51. B. K. Sriperumbudur, K. Fukumizu, A. Gretton, B. Schölkopf, and G. R. G. Lanckriet. On the empirical estimation of integral probability metrics. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 6(0):15501599, 2012.
  52. I. Steinwart and J. F. Ziegel. Strictly proper kernel scores and characteristic kernels on compact spaces. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , 51:510-542, March 2021. ISSN 1063-5203. doi: 10.1016/j.acha.2019.11.005. · DOI
  53. Z. Szabó and B. K. Sriperumbudur. Characteristic and universal tensor product kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(233):1-29, 2018.
  54. M. Taillardat, O. Mestre, M. Zamo, and P. Naveau. Calibrated ensemble forecasts using quantile regression forests and ensemble model output statistics. Monthly Weather Review , 144(6):23752393, June 2016.
  55. J. Vaicenavicius, D. Widmann, C. Andersson, F. Lindsten, J. Roll, and T. B. Schön. Evaluating model calibration in classification. In Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , volume 89 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 3459-3467. PMLR, 4 2019.
  56. A. W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge University Press, October 1998.
  57. C. Villani. Optimal Transport . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  58. D. Widmann, F. Lindsten, and D. Zachariah. Calibration tests in multi-class classification: A unifying framework. In Proceedings of the 32th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 12236-12246. 2019.
  59. S. J. Yakowitz and J. D. Spragins. On the identifiability of finite mixtures. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 39(1):209-214, February 1968.
  60. B. Zadrozny. Reducing multiclass to binary by coupling probability estimates. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 , pp. 1041-1048. MIT Press, 2002.
  61. W. Zaremba, A. Gretton, and M. Blaschko. B-test: A non-parametric, low variance kernel two-sample test. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 , pp. 755-763. 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Widmann, D., Lindsten, F., & Zachariah, D.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119717074
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Funders
  • Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning (ICA16-0015)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2016-04278, 2018-05040, 2020-04122, 2018-)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
calibration, calibration tests, calibration error, multi-class classification, regression calibration, hypothesis testing, decision making under uncertainty

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