REVIEW 1 cited by
Individual Calibration with Randomized Forecasting
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
Machine learning applications often require calibrated predictions, e.g. a 90\% credible interval should contain the true outcome 90\% of the times. However, typical definitions of calibration only require this to hold on average, and offer no guarantees on predictions made on individual samples. Thus, predictions can be systematically over or under confident on certain subgroups, leading to issues of fairness and potential vulnerabilities. We show that calibration for individual samples is possible in the regression setup if the predictions are randomized, i.e. outputting randomized credible intervals. Randomization removes systematic bias by trading off bias with variance. We design a training objective to enforce individual calibration and use it to train randomized regression functions. The resulting models are more calibrated for arbitrarily chosen subgroups of the data, and can achieve higher utility in decision making against adversaries that exploit miscalibrated predictions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Questioning the Coverage-Length Metric in Conformal Prediction: When Shorter Intervals Are Not Better
Randomly returning empty intervals with some probability can shrink average conformal interval length without breaking marginal coverage, so the paper proposes an interval-stability metric to detect such behavior.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.