Learning to Defer to Multiple Experts: Consistent Surrogate Losses, Confidence Calibration, and Conformal Ensembles
Open accessAbstract
We study the statistical properties of learning to defer (L2D) to multiple experts. In particular, we address the open problems of deriving a consistent surrogate loss, confidence calibration, and principled ensembling of experts. Firstly, we derive two consistent surrogates -- one based on a softmax parameterization, the other on a one-vs-all (OvA) parameterization -- that are analogous to the single expert losses proposed by Mozannar and Sontag (2020) and Verma and Nalisnick (2022), respectively. We then study the frameworks' ability to estimate P( m_j = y | x ), the probability that the jth expert will correctly predict the label for x. Theory shows the softmax-based loss causes mis-calibration to propagate between the estimates while the OvA-based loss does not (though in practice, we find there are trade offs). Lastly, we propose a conformal inference technique that chooses a subset of experts to query when the system defers. We perform empirical validation on tasks for galaxy, skin lesion, and hate speech classification.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Training and testing multi-expert learning-to-defer algorithms requires every expert's prediction for every instance.
“Training and testing multi-expert L2D algorithms requires every expert’s prediction for every instance5,12.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
Section 3 (‘L2D to Multiple Experts’) defines each training instance as containing predictions from all J experts, supporting the training part. It does not establish the same requirement for every test instance; Section 5 (‘Ensembling Experts with Conformal Inference’) describes selecting experts to query upon deferral rather than querying them all. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the paper introducing the OvA multi-expert method, the authors report ECE values rarely surpassing 4% across three separate datasets.
“In the paper where the OvA multi-expert method is introduced12, the authors also report the ECE in three separate datasets, with values rarely surpassing 4%.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
Section 7.2 reports calibration error for the OvA method on HateSpeech, HAM10000, and Galaxy-Zoo, with results in the bottom row of Figure 1. The passages in our copy say OvA has the best calibration but do not establish that its ECE values rarely surpass 4%. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLearning to Defer algorithms improve human-AI collaboration by deferring decisions to human experts when they are likely to be more accurate than the AI model.
“Learning to Defer (L2D) algorithms improve human-AI collaboration by deferring decisions to human experts when they are likely to be more accurate than the AI model.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
The state-of-the-art approach to managing assignments in human-AI collaboration is learning to defer.
“The state-of-the-art approach to managing assignments in HAIC is learning to defer (L2D)4–13, in which algorithms choose whether to assign a task to a human expert or an ML model, leveraging their complementary strengths.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
The paper chose to create a total of 50 experts because this far surpasses the numbers previously considered in learning-to-defer research.
“We chose to create a total of 50 experts as this far surpasses the numbers previously considered in L2D research4–13.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Zeynep Akata, Dan Balliet, Maarten De Rijke, Frank Dignum, Virginia Dignum, Guszti Eiben, Antske Fokkens, Davide Grossi, Koen Hindriks, Holger Hoos, et al. A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augment- ing human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, respon- sible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(08):18–28, 2020.
- Erin L. Allwein, Robert E. Schapire, and Yoram Singer. Re- ducing multiclass to binary: A unifying approach for mar- gin classifiers. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 1: 113–141, 2001.
- Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Adam Fisch, Lihua Lei, and Tal Schuster. Conformal risk control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02814, 2022. · arXiv
- Varun Babbar, Umang Bhatt, and Adrian Weller. On the util- ity of prediction sets in human-ai teams. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
- Steven P. Bamford, Robert C. Nichol, Ivan K. Baldry, Kate Land, Chris J. Lintott, Kevin Schawinski, Anže Slosar, Alexander S. Szalay, Daniel Thomas, Mehri Torki, Dan Andreescu, Edward M. Edmondson, Christopher J. Miller, Phil Murray, M. Jordan Raddick, and Jan Vandenberg. Galaxy Zoo: the dependence of morphology and colour on environment*. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 393(4):1324–1352, 2009.
- Peter L. Bartlett and Marten H. Wegkamp. Classification with a reject option using a hinge loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(59):1823–1840, 2008.
- Nina Corvelo Benz and Manuel Gomez Rodriguez. Coun- terfactual inference of second opinions. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
- Nontawat Charoenphakdee, Zhenghang Cui, Yivan Zhang, and Masashi Sugiyama. Classification with rejection based on cost-sensitive classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
- Mohammad-Amin Charusaie, Hussein Mozannar, David Sontag, and Samira Samadi. Sample efficient learning of predictors that complement humans. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making
Alves, J. V., Leitão, D., Jesus, S., Sampaio, M. O. P., Liébana, J., Saleiro, P., Figueiredo, M. A. T., & Bizarro, P. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-04664-y · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“Training and testing multi-expert L2D algorithms requires every expert’s prediction for every instance 5,12 .”
- Authors
- Verma, R., Barrejón, D., & Nalisnick, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2210.16955
- OpenAlex
- W4307931498
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Comunidad de Madrid (IND2022/TIC-23550)
- European Commission (PID2021-123182OB-I00)
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2021-123182OB-I00, PID2021)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- learning to defer, multiple experts, surrogate loss, confidence calibration, conformal inference, softmax loss, expert selection, ensemble learning
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
