Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Distribution-Free Model-Agnostic Regression Calibration via Nonparametric Methods

About

In this paper, we consider the uncertainty quantification problem for regression models. Specifically, we consider an individual calibration objective for characterizing the quantiles of the prediction model. While such an objective is well-motivated from downstream tasks such as newsvendor cost, the existing methods have been largely heuristic and lack of statistical guarantee in terms of individual calibration. We show via simple examples that the existing methods focusing on population-level calibration guarantees such as average calibration or sharpness can lead to harmful and unexpected results. We propose simple nonparametric calibration methods that are agnostic of the underlying prediction model and enjoy both computational efficiency and statistical consistency. Our approach enables a better understanding of the possibility of individual calibration, and we establish matching upper and lower bounds for the calibration error of our proposed methods. Technically, our analysis combines the nonparametric analysis with a covering number argument for parametric analysis, which advances the existing theoretical analyses in the literature of nonparametric density estimation and quantile bandit problems. Importantly, the nonparametric perspective sheds new theoretical insights into regression calibration in terms of the curse of dimensionality and reconciles the existing results on the impossibility of individual calibration. To our knowledge, we make the first effort to reach both individual calibration and finite-sample guarantee with minimal assumptions in terms of conformal prediction. Numerical experiments show the advantage of such a simple approach under various metrics, and also under covariates shift. We hope our work provides a simple benchmark and a starting point of theoretical ground for future research on regression calibration.

Shang Liu, Zhongze Cai, Xiaocheng Li• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
RegressionBoston UCI (test)--
26
RegressionConcrete UCI (test pool)
MACE0.038
14
Uncertainty CalibrationWine
MACE0.2
6
Uncertainty CalibrationAuto-MPG MPG3
MACE0.08
6
Uncertainty CalibrationConcrete
MACE0.05
6
Uncertainty CalibrationBoston
MACE5
6
Uncertainty CalibrationMEPS Panel 19 2017 (test)
Length240.5
6
Uncertainty CalibrationMEPS Panel 21 2017 (test)
Length242
6
Uncertainty CalibrationAuto-MPG MPG2
MACE0.069
6
Uncertainty CalibrationMEPS Panel 20 2017 (test)
Length325
6
Showing 10 of 10 rows

Other info

Code

Follow for update