Testable and Actionable Calibration for Full Swap Regret

The classic concept of "calibrated forecasts" and its more recent refinement, "calibeating," are defined with respect to the standard quadratic scoring rule. We extend these notions to the class of $\textit{proper}$ scoring rules (for which the best forecast is the true distribution) and define $\textit{proper-calibration}$ and $\textit{proper-calibeating}$ by requiring the errors to converge to zero uniformly over all bounded proper scoring rules. We first establish that calibration always implies proper-calibration, whereas calibeating need not imply proper-calibeating. Second, we show how to guarantee proper-calibeating and proper-multicalibeating. Finally, we demonstrate the equivalence between proper-calibration and universal no regret when best replying to forecasts in decision-making under uncertainty.

When providing forecasted probabilities with a predictive model, the ideal model offers perfect calibration: the true probability of the outcome (i.e., the probability that $Y=1$) exactly matches the forecasted probability $f(X)$. In practice, models inevitably exhibit calibration error, and it is therefore important to be able to measure this miscalibration to assess a model's reliability. The Expected Calibration Error (ECE) is the most widely used measure of miscalibration, but is known to be impossible to estimate the ECE with guaranteed accuracy in an assumption-free setting. In this work, we propose an alternative measure, the rankECE, that is based on comparing points with neighboring values of the predicted probability $f(X)$. Our theoretical guarantees and empirical results establish that rankECE provides a better proxy for ECE as compared to binned approximations to ECE, which are the most commonly-used approximations in practice.

Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated. Post-hoc calibration provides a simple and widely used solution, but the large number of proposed methods, combined with small-scale and inconsistent evaluations, makes it difficult to determine which approaches are truly effective in practice. We introduce a large-scale, standardized benchmark for post-hoc calibration, covering nearly 2000 experiments across tabular and computer vision tasks, including binary, multiclass, and large-scale classification settings. Our benchmark aggregates predictions from a diverse set of classical models, modern deep learning architectures, and foundation models, and provides unified, reproducible implementations of dozens of calibration methods within a common evaluation framework. We argue that Post-Hoc Improvement (PHI) in proper scoring rules offers a principled alternative to traditional calibration error estimators for comparing post-hoc methods, capturing both calibration quality and potential degradation to the model's predictive performance. Using this framework, we conduct the most comprehensive empirical study of post-hoc calibration to date. Our results reveal consistent patterns across domains: smooth calibration functions outperform binning-based approaches, dedicated multiclass methods are essential in high-dimensional settings, and generic machine learning models are not competitive without calibration-specific design. To facilitate future research, we release all data, code, and evaluation tools, providing a plug-and-play benchmark for developing and comparing calibration methods.