Proper Calibeating

Proper scoring rules are essential for evaluating probabilistic forecasts. We propose a simple algebraic rearrangement of the Yates covariance decomposition of the Brier score into three independently non-negative terms: a variance mismatch term, a correlation deficit term, and a calibration-in-the-large term. This rearrangement makes the optimality conditions for perfect forecasting transparent: the optimal forecast must simultaneously match the variance of outcomes, achieve perfect positive correlation with outcomes, and match the mean of outcomes. Any deviation from these conditions results in a positive contribution to the Brier score.

AI generated predictions increasingly inform decision making in critical tasks, and therefore must be trustworthy. One widely used measure of trustworthiness is calibration, which requires that the predictions match the true frequencies and can be treated like real probabilities of a given outcome. However, defining calibration is subtle, and designing good measures of calibration error has been an active topic of recent research. The first goal is to find calibration measures that are actionable, meaning they can inform decision makers about their utility loss when predictions are treated as true probabilities, which is known as swap regret. The second goal is to find calibration measures that are testable, meaning that calibration error can be measured from a small sample of predictions and outcomes. Although these are very basic requirements, there is no existing calibration measure that fully satisfies both properties, and all existing measures relax actionability by bounding a weaker notion of swap regret, or relax testability by having suboptimal estimation error. We introduce a new calibration measure, Soft-Binned Calibration Decision Loss (SCDL), which we prove is fully actionable without weakening either requirement, and testable with nearly optimal error rate. In addition, SCDL satisfies other desired properties such as continuity and consistency. We also provide a set of experiments confirming that the theoretical advantages of SCDL compared to other measures lead to better performance in practice.

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.