David Widmann

David Widmann, Fredrik Lindsten, Dave Zachariah

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.

Pierre Glaser, David Widmann, Fredrik Lindsten et al.

We introduce the Kernel Calibration Conditional Stein Discrepancy test (KCCSD test), a non-parametric, kernel-based test for assessing the calibration of probabilistic models with well-defined scores. In contrast to previous methods, our test avoids the need for possibly expensive expectation approximations while providing control over its type-I error. We achieve these improvements by using a new family of kernels for score-based probabilities that can be estimated without probability density samples, and by using a conditional goodness-of-fit criterion for the KCCSD test's U-statistic. We demonstrate the properties of our test on various synthetic settings.

David Widmann, Fredrik Lindsten, Dave Zachariah

In safety-critical applications a probabilistic model is usually required to be calibrated, i.e., to capture the uncertainty of its predictions accurately. In multi-class classification, calibration of the most confident predictions only is often not sufficient. We propose and study calibration measures for multi-class classification that generalize existing measures such as the expected calibration error, the maximum calibration error, and the maximum mean calibration error. We propose and evaluate empirically different consistent and unbiased estimators for a specific class of measures based on matrix-valued kernels. Importantly, these estimators can be interpreted as test statistics associated with well-defined bounds and approximations of the p-value under the null hypothesis that the model is calibrated, significantly improving the interpretability of calibration measures, which otherwise lack any meaningful unit or scale.

Juozas Vaicenavicius, David Widmann, Carl Andersson et al.

Probabilistic classifiers output a probability distribution on target classes rather than just a class prediction. Besides providing a clear separation of prediction and decision making, the main advantage of probabilistic models is their ability to represent uncertainty about predictions. In safety-critical applications, it is pivotal for a model to possess an adequate sense of uncertainty, which for probabilistic classifiers translates into outputting probability distributions that are consistent with the empirical frequencies observed from realized outcomes. A classifier with such a property is called calibrated. In this work, we develop a general theoretical calibration evaluation framework grounded in probability theory, and point out subtleties present in model calibration evaluation that lead to refined interpretations of existing evaluation techniques. Lastly, we propose new ways to quantify and visualize miscalibration in probabilistic classification, including novel multidimensional reliability diagrams.