A Unifying Perspective on Probabilities as Model Predictions

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.

Concepts of calibration formalize the compatibility between probabilistic predictions and the respective outcomes. In a nutshell, the outcomes ought to be indistinguishable from random draws from the predictive distributions. In this paper, we review, extend, and bridge notions of calibration that have been proposed for classification and regression tasks. Particular emphasis is given to hierarchical relations between the various notions, as they apply to general real-valued data, continuous outcomes, count data, nominal classes, and binary outcomes. To highlight a number of contributions, we introduce the notion of modal calibration for nominal outcomes, we distinguish full, partial, and average calibration in this setting, and we show that double probability integral transform (PIT) calibration is logically independent of previously proposed concepts of calibration for discrete outcomes. Furthermore, we generalize extant results on concepts of calibration that are expressed in terms of properties or functionals of the predictive distributions, such as means, quantiles, or event probabilities. Throughout the paper, we illustrate the concepts and their hierarchical relations in worked examples, and we provide algorithmic tools that support the construction of instructive examples and counterexamples.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can in principle train calibrated probabilistic forecasters, since a proper scoring rule such as the Brier score is computed from outcomes alone and is minimized in expectation by the true probability. In practice it degrades calibration, and existing remedies address epistemic uncertainty, where a model's confidence accompanies a verifiably correct or incorrect answer. We study aleatoric forecasting, where the forecast itself is the output and the label is one stochastic outcome, taking NFL in-game win probability as a testbed with the betting market as a reference. Rewarding the realized per-play outcome fails, because the single outcome is a noisy target and the policy gradient corrupts the chain of thought. We introduce a verifiable, label-free reward, a state-conditioned empirical win rate estimated from past outcomes, that removes the label noise, and we keep the gradient off the reasoning, by direct prediction or a gradient mask, so it cannot be corrupted. Trained with this reward alone, without human labels or supervised fine-tuning, a 7B model reaches the calibration of the betting market by direct prediction and is better calibrated than a zero-shot frontier model. That frontier model and a tabular estimator reach the same Brier score as this model, identifying the market's small remaining edge as live in-game information beyond their shared inputs. Masking the gradient, rather than dropping the chain of thought, preserves reasoning from which the forecast follows, which ordinary chain-of-thought training corrupts.