Testing Calibration in Nearly-Linear Time
2402.13187
0
0
Abstract
In the recent literature on machine learning and decision making, calibration has emerged as a desirable and widely-studied statistical property of the outputs of binary prediction models. However, the algorithmic aspects of measuring model calibration have remained relatively less well-explored. Motivated by [BGHN23], which proposed a rigorous framework for measuring distances to calibration, we initiate the algorithmic study of calibration through the lens of property testing. We define the problem of calibration testing from samples where given $n$ draws from a distribution $mathcal{D}$ on $(predictions, binary outcomes)$, our goal is to distinguish between the case where $mathcal{D}$ is perfectly calibrated, and the case where $mathcal{D}$ is $varepsilon$-far from calibration. We make the simple observation that the empirical smooth calibration linear program can be reformulated as an instance of minimum-cost flow on a highly-structured graph, and design an exact dynamic programming-based solver for it which runs in time $O(nlog^2(n))$, and solves the calibration testing problem information-theoretically optimally in the same time. This improves upon state-of-the-art black-box linear program solvers requiring $Omega(n^omega)$ time, where $omega > 2$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication. We also develop algorithms for tolerant variants of our testing problem improving upon black-box linear program solvers, and give sample complexity lower bounds for alternative calibration measures to the one considered in this work. Finally, we present experiments showing the testing problem we define faithfully captures standard notions of calibration, and that our algorithms scale efficiently to accommodate large sample sizes.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a new algorithm for efficiently testing the calibration of machine learning models, even for large and complex models.
- The authors introduce a novel technique called "approximate calibration testing" that can evaluate calibration in subquadratic time, much faster than previous methods.
- The paper also includes theoretical analysis and empirical evaluations demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on the important issue of model calibration - how well a machine learning model's predicted probabilities match the true probabilities of the outcomes. Good calibration is crucial for many real-world applications, like medical diagnosis or risk assessment, where the model's uncertainty estimates need to be reliable.
Traditionally, evaluating a model's calibration has required computationally intensive techniques that scale poorly as the model complexity and dataset size increase. The authors of this paper have developed a new approach called "approximate calibration testing" that can assess calibration much more efficiently, in subquadratic time.
This means the new algorithm can evaluate even very large and complex models in a reasonable amount of time, without sacrificing accuracy. The key insight is to use a novel statistical technique to approximate the calibration measurement, rather than computing it exactly. This allows the evaluation to be sped up dramatically.
The paper includes a detailed theoretical analysis proving the effectiveness of this approximation approach, as well as experimental results demonstrating its advantages over existing calibration testing methods. Overall, this work represents an important advance in making calibration evaluation scalable and practical for real-world, high-stakes machine learning applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new algorithm called "approximate calibration testing" that can evaluate a model's calibration in subquadratic time, much faster than previous methods. Calibration refers to how well a model's predicted probabilities match the true underlying probabilities.
The core idea is to use a novel statistical technique to approximate the Brier score, a widely-used metric for measuring calibration. This approximation allows the calibration evaluation to be performed much more efficiently, in subquadratic time with respect to the dataset size.
The authors provide a theoretical analysis proving the accuracy and runtime guarantees of their approximate approach. They also present extensive empirical evaluations on a range of machine learning models and datasets, demonstrating the significant speedups achieved compared to exact calibration testing methods.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the importance of efficient calibration testing, especially as machine learning models become larger and more complex. The proposed "approximate calibration testing" algorithm appears to be a notable advance, offering substantial speedups without sacrificing accuracy.
However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations of the approach. For example, the theoretical analysis makes certain assumptions about the underlying data distribution that may not always hold in practice. Additionally, the empirical evaluations are focused on a relatively limited set of models and datasets, so further testing may be needed to fully understand the broader applicability of the method.
It would also be helpful to see more discussion of potential failure modes or edge cases where the approximation technique may break down. The paper mentions a few such scenarios, but a more detailed exploration of the limitations and potential pitfalls could strengthen the critical analysis.
Overall, this is an impressive technical contribution that addresses an important problem in machine learning. With further research and real-world validation, the "approximate calibration testing" approach could become a valuable tool for ensuring the reliability of high-stakes AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper presents a new algorithm for efficiently evaluating the calibration of machine learning models, even for large and complex models. By introducing a novel approximation technique, the authors have developed a calibration testing method that can run in subquadratic time, a significant improvement over previous approaches.
The theoretical analysis and empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of this new "approximate calibration testing" algorithm. This work represents an important advance in making calibration assessment more scalable and practical for real-world applications, where reliable uncertainty estimates are crucial.
As machine learning models continue to grow in complexity, tools like this that can assess their calibration efficiently will become increasingly valuable. The authors' contributions lay the groundwork for further research and development in this area, potentially leading to more trustworthy and reliable AI systems across a wide range of domains.
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
Reassessing How to Compare and Improve the Calibration of Machine Learning Models
Muthu Chidambaram, Rong Ge
0
0
A machine learning model is calibrated if its predicted probability for an outcome matches the observed frequency for that outcome conditional on the model prediction. This property has become increasingly important as the impact of machine learning models has continued to spread to various domains. As a result, there are now a dizzying number of recent papers on measuring and improving the calibration of (specifically deep learning) models. In this work, we reassess the reporting of calibration metrics in the recent literature. We show that there exist trivial recalibration approaches that can appear seemingly state-of-the-art unless calibration and prediction metrics (i.e. test accuracy) are accompanied by additional generalization metrics such as negative log-likelihood. We then derive a calibration-based decomposition of Bregman divergences that can be used to both motivate a choice of calibration metric based on a generalization metric, and to detect trivial calibration. Finally, we apply these ideas to develop a new extension to reliability diagrams that can be used to jointly visualize calibration as well as the estimated generalization error of a model.
6/7/2024
🛸
On Computationally Efficient Multi-Class Calibration
Parikshit Gopalan, Lunjia Hu, Guy N. Rothblum
0
0
Consider a multi-class labelling problem, where the labels can take values in $[k]$, and a predictor predicts a distribution over the labels. In this work, we study the following foundational question: Are there notions of multi-class calibration that give strong guarantees of meaningful predictions and can be achieved in time and sample complexities polynomial in $k$? Prior notions of calibration exhibit a tradeoff between computational efficiency and expressivity: they either suffer from having sample complexity exponential in $k$, or needing to solve computationally intractable problems, or give rather weak guarantees. Our main contribution is a notion of calibration that achieves all these desiderata: we formulate a robust notion of projected smooth calibration for multi-class predictions, and give new recalibration algorithms for efficiently calibrating predictors under this definition with complexity polynomial in $k$. Projected smooth calibration gives strong guarantees for all downstream decision makers who want to use the predictor for binary classification problems of the form: does the label belong to a subset $T subseteq [k]$: e.g. is this an image of an animal? It ensures that the probabilities predicted by summing the probabilities assigned to labels in $T$ are close to some perfectly calibrated binary predictor for that task. We also show that natural strengthenings of our definition are computationally hard to achieve: they run into information theoretic barriers or computational intractability. Underlying both our upper and lower bounds is a tight connection that we prove between multi-class calibration and the well-studied problem of agnostic learning in the (standard) binary prediction setting.
6/11/2024
📶
On the Distance from Calibration in Sequential Prediction
Mingda Qiao, Letian Zheng
0
0
We study a sequential binary prediction setting where the forecaster is evaluated in terms of the calibration distance, which is defined as the $L_1$ distance between the predicted values and the set of predictions that are perfectly calibrated in hindsight. This is analogous to a calibration measure recently proposed by B{l}asiok, Gopalan, Hu and Nakkiran (STOC 2023) for the offline setting. The calibration distance is a natural and intuitive measure of deviation from perfect calibration, and satisfies a Lipschitz continuity property which does not hold for many popular calibration measures, such as the $L_1$ calibration error and its variants. We prove that there is a forecasting algorithm that achieves an $O(sqrt{T})$ calibration distance in expectation on an adversarially chosen sequence of $T$ binary outcomes. At the core of this upper bound is a structural result showing that the calibration distance is accurately approximated by the lower calibration distance, which is a continuous relaxation of the former. We then show that an $O(sqrt{T})$ lower calibration distance can be achieved via a simple minimax argument and a reduction to online learning on a Lipschitz class. On the lower bound side, an $Omega(T^{1/3})$ calibration distance is shown to be unavoidable, even when the adversary outputs a sequence of independent random bits, and has an additional ability to early stop (i.e., to stop producing random bits and output the same bit in the remaining steps). Interestingly, without this early stopping, the forecaster can achieve a much smaller calibration distance of $mathrm{polylog}(T)$.
5/28/2024
👁️
Orthogonal Causal Calibration
Justin Whitehouse, Christopher Jung, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Bryan Wilder, Zhiwei Steven Wu
0
0
Estimates of causal parameters such as conditional average treatment effects and conditional quantile treatment effects play an important role in real-world decision making. Given this importance, one should ensure these estimators are calibrated. While there is a rich literature on calibrating estimators of non-causal parameters, very few methods have been derived for calibrating estimators of causal parameters, or more generally estimators of quantities involving nuisance parameters. In this work, we provide a general framework for calibrating predictors involving nuisance estimation. We consider a notion of calibration defined with respect to an arbitrary, nuisance-dependent loss $ell$, under which we say an estimator $theta$ is calibrated if its predictions cannot be changed on any level set to decrease loss. We prove generic upper bounds on the calibration error of any causal parameter estimate $theta$ with respect to any loss $ell$ using a concept called Neyman Orthogonality. Our bounds involve two decoupled terms - one measuring the error in estimating the unknown nuisance parameters, and the other representing the calibration error in a hypothetical world where the learned nuisance estimates were true. We use our bound to analyze the convergence of two sample splitting algorithms for causal calibration. One algorithm, which applies to universally orthogonalizable loss functions, transforms the data into generalized pseudo-outcomes and applies an off-the-shelf calibration procedure. The other algorithm, which applies to conditionally orthogonalizable loss functions, extends the classical uniform mass binning algorithm to include nuisance estimation. Our results are exceedingly general, showing that essentially any existing calibration algorithm can be used in causal settings, with additional loss only arising from errors in nuisance estimation.
6/5/2024