REVIEW 1 cited by
Selective prediction-set models with coverage guarantees
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
read the original abstract
Though black-box predictors are state-of-the-art for many complex tasks, they often fail to properly quantify predictive uncertainty and may provide inappropriate predictions for unfamiliar data. Instead, we can learn more reliable models by letting them either output a prediction set or abstain when the uncertainty is high. We propose training these selective prediction-set models using an uncertainty-aware loss minimization framework, which unifies ideas from decision theory and robust maximum likelihood. Moreover, since black-box methods are not guaranteed to output well-calibrated prediction sets, we show how to calculate point estimates and confidence intervals for the true coverage of any selective prediction-set model, as well as a uniform mixture of K set models obtained from K-fold sample-splitting. When applied to predicting in-hospital mortality and length-of-stay for ICU patients, our model outperforms existing approaches on both in-sample and out-of-sample age groups, and our recalibration method provides accurate inference for prediction set coverage.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Language Models Prefer What They Know: Relative Confidence Estimation via Confidence Preferences
Relative pairwise confidence comparisons aggregated by rank aggregation produce more reliable confidence scores for language models than direct absolute confidence prompts.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.