Cautious Calibration in Binary Classification
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines the problem of cautious calibration in binary classification tasks
- Proposes a method for selecting an optimal risk level based on desired accuracy and calibration trade-offs
- Demonstrates the approach on a real-world medical screening example
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on the challenge of cautious calibration in binary classification problems. This refers to the need to balance accuracy (correctly predicting the class) with calibration (the model's confidence in its predictions matching the true probability of the class).
The authors present a method for selecting an optimal risk level - a threshold that determines when the model will make a prediction versus abstaining. This allows users to choose a risk level that aligns with their desired trade-off between accuracy and calibration.
To illustrate the approach, the authors use a medical screening example. They show how the optimal risk level can be chosen to maximize the number of correctly identified high-risk patients, while maintaining an acceptable false positive rate. This could help medical professionals make more informed decisions about which patients to prioritize for further testing or treatment.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework for cautious calibration in binary classification, where the model can choose to abstain from making a prediction if it is not sufficiently confident. This is modeled as a constrained optimization problem, where the goal is to maximize accuracy subject to a constraint on the calibration error.
The authors introduce the concept of an optimal risk level, which is a threshold that determines when the model will make a prediction versus abstaining. They show that this risk level can be selected to achieve the desired trade-off between accuracy and calibration, as measured by the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) and the Calibration Error.
The approach is evaluated on a real-world medical screening dataset, where the goal is to identify high-risk patients for further testing. The results demonstrate that the proposed method can outperform standard classification approaches in terms of the accuracy-calibration trade-off, allowing medical professionals to make more informed decisions.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling framework for cautious calibration in binary classification, addressing an important practical challenge. The authors' use of a constrained optimization approach to select the optimal risk level is a thoughtful and principled solution.
One potential limitation is the reliance on the AUC-ROC and Calibration Error as the primary evaluation metrics. While these are widely used, they may not capture all aspects of the accuracy-calibration trade-off that are relevant in certain applications. It would be interesting to see the approach evaluated using additional metrics, such as the Brier Score or Calibration Slope.
Additionally, the authors acknowledge that the optimal risk level selection can be sensitive to the specific characteristics of the dataset and the application domain. Further research may be needed to understand how the approach generalizes to a wider range of problems and to explore methods for making the risk level selection more robust.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel framework for cautious calibration in binary classification, with a focus on selecting an optimal risk level to balance accuracy and calibration. The proposed approach is demonstrated on a real-world medical screening task, showing its potential to improve decision-making in high-stakes domains.
The work highlights the importance of considering both accuracy and calibration in classification models, and provides a principled method for navigating the trade-off between these two crucial aspects of model performance. As AI systems become more widely deployed, techniques like cautious calibration will be essential for ensuring their safe and reliable use in critical applications.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Cautious Calibration in Binary Classification
Mari-Liis Allikivi, Joonas Jarve, Meelis Kull
Being cautious is crucial for enhancing the trustworthiness of machine learning systems integrated into decision-making pipelines. Although calibrated probabilities help in optimal decision-making, perfect calibration remains unattainable, leading to estimates that fluctuate between under- and overconfidence. This becomes a critical issue in high-risk scenarios, where even occasional overestimation can lead to extreme expected costs. In these scenarios, it is important for each predicted probability to lean towards underconfidence, rather than just achieving an average balance. In this study, we introduce the novel concept of cautious calibration in binary classification. This approach aims to produce probability estimates that are intentionally underconfident for each predicted probability. We highlight the importance of this approach in a high-risk scenario and propose a theoretically grounded method for learning cautious calibration maps. Through experiments, we explore and compare our method to various approaches, including methods originally not devised for cautious calibration but applicable in this context. We show that our approach is the most consistent in providing cautious estimates. Our work establishes a strong baseline for further developments in this novel framework.
Read more8/12/2024
🏷️
0
Calibrated Selective Classification
Adam Fisch, Tommi Jaakkola, Regina Barzilay
Selective classification allows models to abstain from making predictions (e.g., say I don't know) when in doubt in order to obtain better effective accuracy. While typical selective models can be effective at producing more accurate predictions on average, they may still allow for wrong predictions that have high confidence, or skip correct predictions that have low confidence. Providing calibrated uncertainty estimates alongside predictions -- probabilities that correspond to true frequencies -- can be as important as having predictions that are simply accurate on average. However, uncertainty estimates can be unreliable for certain inputs. In this paper, we develop a new approach to selective classification in which we propose a method for rejecting examples with uncertain uncertainties. By doing so, we aim to make predictions with {well-calibrated} uncertainty estimates over the distribution of accepted examples, a property we call selective calibration. We present a framework for learning selectively calibrated models, where a separate selector network is trained to improve the selective calibration error of a given base model. In particular, our work focuses on achieving robust calibration, where the model is intentionally designed to be tested on out-of-domain data. We achieve this through a training strategy inspired by distributionally robust optimization, in which we apply simulated input perturbations to the known, in-domain training data. We demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of our approach on multiple image classification and lung cancer risk assessment tasks.
Read more6/24/2024
🔎
0
Towards Certification of Uncertainty Calibration under Adversarial Attacks
Cornelius Emde, Francesco Pinto, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Philip H. S. Torr, Adel Bibi
Since neural classifiers are known to be sensitive to adversarial perturbations that alter their accuracy, textit{certification methods} have been developed to provide provable guarantees on the insensitivity of their predictions to such perturbations. Furthermore, in safety-critical applications, the frequentist interpretation of the confidence of a classifier (also known as model calibration) can be of utmost importance. This property can be measured via the Brier score or the expected calibration error. We show that attacks can significantly harm calibration, and thus propose certified calibration as worst-case bounds on calibration under adversarial perturbations. Specifically, we produce analytic bounds for the Brier score and approximate bounds via the solution of a mixed-integer program on the expected calibration error. Finally, we propose novel calibration attacks and demonstrate how they can improve model calibration through textit{adversarial calibration training}.
Read more5/24/2024
0
Probabilistic Scores of Classifiers, Calibration is not Enough
Agathe Fernandes Machado, Arthur Charpentier, Emmanuel Flachaire, Ewen Gallic, Franc{c}ois Hu
In binary classification tasks, accurate representation of probabilistic predictions is essential for various real-world applications such as predicting payment defaults or assessing medical risks. The model must then be well-calibrated to ensure alignment between predicted probabilities and actual outcomes. However, when score heterogeneity deviates from the underlying data probability distribution, traditional calibration metrics lose reliability, failing to align score distribution with actual probabilities. In this study, we highlight approaches that prioritize optimizing the alignment between predicted scores and true probability distributions over minimizing traditional performance or calibration metrics. When employing tree-based models such as Random Forest and XGBoost, our analysis emphasizes the flexibility these models offer in tuning hyperparameters to minimize the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between predicted and true distributions. Through extensive empirical analysis across 10 UCI datasets and simulations, we demonstrate that optimizing tree-based models based on KL divergence yields superior alignment between predicted scores and actual probabilities without significant performance loss. In real-world scenarios, the reference probability is determined a priori as a Beta distribution estimated through maximum likelihood. Conversely, minimizing traditional calibration metrics may lead to suboptimal results, characterized by notable performance declines and inferior KL values. Our findings reveal limitations in traditional calibration metrics, which could undermine the reliability of predictive models for critical decision-making.
Read more8/9/2024