Matching one distribution to many targets can require repeated evaluations of every target. CAL-α-MODM aggregates a nonlinear predictor into one barycenter, calibrates its residual derivatives, and checks steps against the original f-divergence objective. Under smoothness assumptions, calibration controls parameter-step model error without requiring targets to be close to the model. Exact-oracle stationarity and local convergence guarantees are established. At common matching, canonical geometry cancels the leading quadratic iteration error, giving cubic convergence with second-order calibration and sufficiently accurate inner solves. High-precision experiments support this prediction. Sensitivity-based initialization also accelerates preference continuation along regular stationary branches. On 300-target Jensen--Shannon problems, CAL-p2 achieves median paired speedups of 3.15× over L-BFGS and 1.10× over second-order Direct-TR, across 23/25 and 24/25 objective-comparable stationary pairs. The savings arise when cheaper predictor queries offset calibration overhead.
Figures & tables
Notion
Order
Meaning
Likelihood-ratio normal form
4
Error as p/q→1
Calibrated model p
(p+1,p)
Value/gradient error in the step
Global complexity
O(ε−2)
Certified iterations to first-order stationarity
Local iteration
At least Q- p
Error recursion for p=2,3
Table 1: Distinct notions of order used in the paper.
Figure 1: Local normal-form scaling in the forward and reverse orientations. Curves show medians over 20 seeds. Dashed references have slopes 4 , 3 , and 2 . Both axes are logarithmic.
Figure 2: E2 amortized cost, K=2048 , 30 paired repeats. Left: direct (solid) and aggregated (dashed) time per query, with IQRs. Middle: target-kernel (solid) and end-to-end (dashed) speedups, with m -fold and unit references. Right: break-even query counts. Gaps indicate a nonpositive 2.5th percentile of paired savings.
Figure 3: Step-local calibrated-model error scaling. Columns correspond to p=1,2,3 . Rows show value and directional-derivative errors. Curves are medians over three generators, 20 seeds, and two signed rays. Dashed references have slopes p+1 and p .
Figure 4: E4 robustness and cost, 30 paired seeds. Rows: JS and KL+quartic. Left: success rates and median certified nonacceptance fractions, including failed subproblems and rejected trials (not applicable to L-BFGS). Right: median paired runtime speedups and component-call ratios against Direct-NL-TR in the target-count sweep. Both runs must succeed.
Figure 5: E5 one-step orders: means and one standard deviation over ten seeds and two paired signs (bars smaller than markers, not confidence intervals). Dashed lines mark order p . Actual-iterate orders appear in Table 7 .
Figure 6: E7 normalized gradient errors ( C.13 ) at θ=0 , ∥s∥=0.1 . Directions and signs are summarized within seeds, then medians/IQRs across 20 seeds. CAL-minus/plus use αf∓1 . All calibrated models and Taylor-p2 match through order two. JS orientations coincide.
Figure 7: E10 one-step errors, seed medians/IQRs, with identical p=2 calibration and cubic inner forcing. Canonical CAL-p2 is cubic at η=0 and quadratic for positive heterogeneity. Panels show η=0,0.05 and all six radii. Fits and audits use all four heterogeneities.
Claim
Observation
Experiment
Exact aggregation
Max. scaled identity error 3.77×10−15
E2
Step-based accuracy
Value/directional-derivative exponents (p+1,p)
E3
Calibration fidelity
Higher true-gradient success rates than uncalibrated models
E4, E7
Canonical cancellation
CAL-p2 order 3.000 ; Taylor-p2 order 2.000
E10
Quadratic local iteration
Mean fitted orders 1.993 – 2.014
E5, p=2
Cubic local iteration
Mean fitted orders 2.994 – 2.996
E5, p=3
Table 3: Controlled evidence. Local rates require the stated neighborhood and inner-accuracy conditions. The E10 cubic result is at common matching.
Figure 8: E9: measured JS acceleration relative to direct L-BFGS (left) and Direct-TR (right). Values above one favor CAL. Points and bars are seed medians and IQRs of objective-comparable successful pairs. These are the JS panels of the complete comparison in Figure 35 . Table 4 reports CAL-p2 pair coverage.
Figure 9: E9: true-objective cost divided by aggregated-predictor cost, at matched derivative orders. F, FG, and FGH include values, values/gradients, and values/gradients/Hessians. The JS cost separation grows with the target count. KL stays near one because both implementations aggregate exactly. Points and bars are seed medians and IQRs across five seeds.
Figure 10: E9 implementation ablation with identical optimization rules. Left: eager/demand-driven time ratios for CAL-p1/p2. Right: median template-Hessian counts. This compares two implementations of the same method, not CAL against a direct optimizer.
Figure 11: E8: saved decoded mean images for CAL-p2, JS, seed 1, with a fixed decoder. Each preference λ has nine latent draws, without reranking. All-method samples and complete held-out image diagnostics are in Appendix C.8 .
Figure 12: E8 quadrature and endpoint audits. Dashed lines mark the configured thresholds. The mass panel reports normalization error of the discrete masses. Stored zeros are displayed at 10−16 without changing the data. Large true gradients of uncalibrated JS endpoints explain their failed audits.
Figure 13: E8 pairwise projections of latent objectives at audited successful endpoints, seed 1. Coincident markers indicate overlapping solutions. The points are sampled stationary trade-offs, not a certified full Pareto front.
Figure 14: E8 held-out image diagnostics: class fractions and image MMD 2 under JS, summarized by seed medians and IQRs. Preference IDs are categorical and follow the saved preference key. Failed endpoints are included. These quantities describe decoded distributions rather than certify optimality.
Time speedup
True-jet ratio
Case
vs Cold
vs Warm
vs Cold
JS, F
2.099
1.590
0.581
JS, R
2.044
1.474
0.581
KL4, F
2.087
1.376
0.562
KL4, R
2.026
1.263
0.516
Table 5: E6: Tangent costs at 49 preferences; paired seed medians. Timings include aggregation, initialization, and correction. F/R: forward/reverse; KL4: KL+quartic.
Figure 15: E6 independent prediction errors: medians over signs within each seed, then over ten seeds. Warm uses the base reference. Tangent adds its sensitivity prediction. Dashed slopes one and two nearly overlap the curves. The horizontal axis measures preference displacement, not corrector iteration.
Appendix figures & tables26 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 16: Fitted-exponent deviations for E1, scaled by 103 . Markers show means over 20 seeds, error bars one standard deviation, and the dashed line exact agreement.
Figure 17: E2 aggregation identity errors in both orientations: maximum scaled discrepancy over 20 seeds and eight queries per seed, including the aggregate’s constant and scale. The dashed line marks tolerance 10−10 . Errors remain at double-precision roundoff.
Figure 18: E3 fitted model-error orders by generator (columns): value errors (top, order p+1 ) and directional-derivative errors (bottom, order p ). Markers and bars show means and one standard deviation over 20 seeds and two signed rays, not confidence intervals. Blue circles/orange squares denote forward/reverse orientations, offset for visibility. Dashed lines mark theoretical orders.
Time speedup
Call ratio
Method
JS
KL+quartic
JS
KL+quartic
Direct-LBFGS
12.87
5.77
0.128
0.227
Direct-TR
3.36
4.15
0.119
0.143
Direct-NL-TR
1.00
1.00
1.000
1.000
CAL- α - p1
1.74
0.41
0.137
0.490
CAL- α - p2
1.76
2.55
0.135
0.160
Appendix
Table 6: E4 at m=128 : median paired ratios against Direct-NL-TR. Each displayed method succeeds in all 60 runs per generator. Uncalibrated fails in all 60, so its paired costs are unavailable. Higher speedups and lower call ratios are better.
Figure 19: E4 true-gradient profiles: JS, (K,d,m)=(128,16,32) , τ=1.5 , uniform preferences. Rows separate orientations. Budgets are component-equivalent calls (left) and time (right). Curves are pointwise medians over 30 seeds after log-coordinate interpolation. Final gradients are carried forward, and budgets before the first record are unavailable. The dotted line marks 10−6 .
Figure 20: E5 independent one-step errors by generator (columns) and orientation (rows). Coordinates are medians over ten seeds and two signs. Dashed slopes two and three largely overlap the curves. Fits use each seed/sign’s prespecified window, not the median curves.
Generator
Orientation
p=2
p=3
JS
Forward
1.993±0.045
2.996±0.012
JS
Reverse
1.993±0.045
2.996±0.012
KL+quartic
Forward
2.014±0.029
2.996±0.012
KL+quartic
Reverse
1.995±0.015
2.994±0.013
Appendix
Table 7: E5 actual-iterate orders: mean ± one standard deviation of the last eligible qt from each run. Each cell contains ten seeds and two paired signs. JS orientations coincide mathematically.
Figure 21: E5 parameter-error trajectories, seed 1, positive initial direction, 120-digit arithmetic. Panels separate generators and orientations. Table 7 summarizes all runs.
Figure 22: E5 individual condition ablations on the first forward KL+quartic problem. Top: parameter errors and true gradients for standard p=3 and four controls. Bottom: a flat parameter direction permits vanishing gradient without convergence to the selected reference. The text reports each control’s outcome.
Generator
Orientation
Warm
Tangent
JS
Forward
0.999989±0.000005
2.000089±0.000283
JS
Reverse
0.999989±0.000005
2.000089±0.000283
KL+quartic
Forward
1.000184±0.000122
2.000039±0.000690
KL+quartic
Reverse
1.000238±0.000082
2.000341±0.000808
Appendix
Table 8: E6 local prediction orders. Entries are mean ± one standard deviation across ten seeds, after averaging the two signed slopes within each seed. The reference orders are one for Warm and two for Tangent.
Figure 23: E6 whole-path costs by generator/orientation: runtime speedup against Cold (left) and true-jet pass ratio (right). Paired ratios use median times over three repetitions, then medians over traversals within seeds and medians/IQRs over ten seeds. Initialization and the common first solve are included.
Figure 24: E6 pre-correction gradient norms, seed 1, forward traversal of the 49-point loop, both divergence orientations. All methods share the first cold initialization. The reference line is the corrector tolerance 10−8 .
Figure 25: E6 corrected objective paths, seed 1, finest grid, forward traversal. The black line connects independent references. Staggered markers show Cold, Warm, and Tangent solutions. All sampled points enter validation. The loop does not cover the full Pareto surface.
Figure 26: E7 normalized value errors with the probes and aggregation of Figure 6 . Canonical median errors improve on JS and KL+chi-square. Calibrated and Taylor curves nearly coincide for KL+quartic at larger heterogeneities. The horizontal axis varies targets, not step size.
Figure 27: E7 paired speedups against Taylor-p2 (above one is faster), using median times over three repetitions and seed medians/IQRs. Each calibrated group has 20 successful, objective-comparable pairs. Uncalibrated pairs exist only for JS and KL+chi-square at τ=0.1 . Missing points indicate no eligible pairs.
Figure 28: E7 true-gradient histories, preselected seed 1 and τ=1 , including rejected trials. These representative histories do not measure asymptotic local order or replace all-seed success statistics.
Figure 29: E8 representation diagnostics for seed 1: training and validation reconstruction loss, validation accuracy of an independent image classifier, and held-out inputs with frozen-decoder reconstructions.
Figure 30: E8 saved decoded samples, four JS preferences, seed 1. Columns compare methods. All displayed uncalibrated endpoints failed to converge. Mosaics retain the saved samples, cropping only surrounding whitespace. CAL-p2 also appears in Figure 11 .
Figure 31: E8 paired runtime and all-run audited success. Timing uses only successful, objective-comparable pairs and reports pair counts. Success uses all attempted cases. N/A denotes absence of eligible timing pairs.
Figure 32: E8 signed objective gaps to independent local best-found references, including failed endpoints. A negative value means that the tested run improved on its reference.
Figure 33: E9 absolute evaluation costs at matched derivative orders, summarized by seed medians and IQRs. FGH includes both gradients and Hessians. Predictor preprocessing is accounted for separately and included in total solves.
Figure 34: E9 total solve times including preference-dependent scalarization setup, over all attempts. Because different methods can reach different local solutions, these marginal medians supplement rather than replace paired speedups.
Figure 35: E9 full paired speedups for JS and the exact-aggregation KL control, against Direct-TR and Direct-LBFGS. Curves summarize successful objective-comparable pairs by seed medians and IQRs. CAL-p2 JS pair coverage is given in Table 4 . Raw records retain every attempted case.
Figure 36: E9 diagnostic cost breakdown at m=300 from separate instrumented replays. Each component is summarized by its median. Performance claims use the unprofiled paired timing experiment.
Figure 37: E9 signed objective gaps relative to independent local references, retaining all endpoints. Negative gaps are possible because references are best-found local solutions. These plots report solution variation separately from stationarity success and timing-pair coverage.
Figure 38: E10 expansion audit: subtracting the predicted quadratic vector leaves an approximately constant ∥e+−b(e)∥/∥e∥3 . Panels show η=0,0.05 . Fits cover all four heterogeneities. Third derivatives enter only the offline prediction and audit.
We study calibeating, the problem of post-processing external forecasts online to minimize cumulative losses and match an informativeness-based benchmark. Unlike prior work, which analyzed calibeating for specific losses with specific arguments, we reduce calibeating to existing online learning techniques and obtain results for general proper losses. More concretely, we first show that calibeating is minimax-equivalent to regret minimization. This recovers the O(logT) calibeating rate of Foster and Hart [FH23] for the Brier and log losses and its optimality, and yields new optimal calibeating rates for mixable losses and general bounded losses. Second, we prove that multi-calibeating is minimax-equivalent to the combination of calibeating and the classical expert problem. This yields new optimal multi-calibeating rates for mixable losses, including Brier and log losses, and general bounded losses. Finally, we obtain new bounds for achieving calibeating and calibration simultaneously for the Brier loss. For binary predictions, our result gives the first calibrated algorithm that at the same time also achieves the optimal O(logT) calibeating rate.
Yurong Chen, Zhiyi Huang, Michael I. Jordan +1
Inria, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University · The University of Hong Kong · University of California, Berkeley +1
We study the online calibration of multidimensional forecasts over an arbitrary convex set Y⊆Rd relative to an arbitrary error norm ∥⋅∥L. For forecasting d binary outcomes simultaneously (Y=[0,1]d), we give the first algorithm that achieves ε-calibration in a number of rounds that is polynomial in d for every fixed accuracy. It requires dO(1/ε) rounds, exponentially improving the dimension dependence of previous bounds. For multi-class forecasting (Y=Δd), we obtain the same dO(1/ε) rate, improving the dO(1/ε2) bounds of Peng and Fishelson et al. Our algorithm is simple: on each round, it outputs a harmonically weighted distribution over harmonically smoothed past outcomes. The same algorithm works for every forecast set and norm. More generally, it achieves ε-calibration after exp(O(γ(Y,L)/ε)) rounds, where γ(Y,L) is a geometric parameter defined by a matrix discrepancy problem. The harmonic weights are motivated by the fact that the discrete Hilbert transform matrix achieves the optimal discrepancy up to a universal constant, simultaneously for every L. This optimality result may be of independent interest.
Maxwell Fishelson, Mehryar Mohri
Institute for Advanced Study. · Google Research and Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York.
In memetic symbolic regression, candidate structures are compared after coefficient calibration, so the calibration protocol itself contributes to evolutionary selection. Standard centralized calibration evaluates each structure at its pooled-sample optimum, ignoring how stable this calibration is under covariate shifts, and can thus favor structures whose fit relies on sample-specific coefficients. We propose Dirichlet-Sinkhorn Constant Averaging (DSCA), a calibration strategy that partitions the optimization data into equally sized subsets with different covariate distributions, calibrates each candidate independently on every partition, and evaluates it at the mean of the resulting parameters. We show that the excess loss of DSCA relative to centralized calibration vanishes at the population level for correctly specified, identifiable expressions, whereas under misspecification it persists when partition-specific calibrations do not aggregate to the pooled optimum. On synthetic benchmarks and ten real-world datasets, DSCA improves functional recovery and the accuracy-complexity trade-off over centralized Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno and Levenberg-Marquardt calibration, under selection by negative log-likelihood and by the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. Mechanism analyses associate the DSCA excess loss with the generalization gap and show that the effect is not reproduced by repeated centralized fitting. These results indicate that controlled heterogeneous calibration provides a complementary source of selection pressure in symbolic-regression search.