Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Learning to Defer to Multiple Experts: Consistent Surrogate Losses, Confidence Calibration, and Conformal Ensembles

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.16955 v2 pith:4T4CYBYP submitted 2022-10-30 stat.ML cs.LG

Learning to Defer to Multiple Experts: Consistent Surrogate Losses, Confidence Calibration, and Conformal Ensembles

classification stat.ML cs.LG
keywords expertsconsistentlosscalibrationconfidenceconformaldeferexpert
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. One Human, $N$ Agents: Audit-Budget Allocation for LLM Agent Fleets under Miscalibrated, Correlated Confidence

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Past a budget-dependent miscalibration threshold δ* that rises as B/N shrinks, confidence-ranked auditing of LLM agent fleets is worse than random; open-weight models land near the flip while shared difficulty dominat...

  2. Strategic Decision Support for AI Agents

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The paper introduces an optimization framework for AI agents to strategically seek support, proving a threshold policy on support value and providing an online algorithm to control missed-support error without distrib...