When a model's predicted number of events within any time interval is similar to the observed number, it is called well-calibrated . A survival model's calibration can be measured using, for instance, distributional calibration (

In safety-critical applications a probabilistic model is usually required to be calibrated, i.e., to capture the uncertainty of its predictions accurately. In multi-class classification, calibration of the most confident predictions only is often not sufficient. We propose and study calibration measures for multi-class classification that generalize existing measures such as the expected calibration error, the maximum calibration error, and the maximum mean calibration error. We propose and evaluate empirically different consistent and unbiased estimators for a specific class of measures based on matrix-valued kernels. Importantly, these estimators can be interpreted as test statistics associated with well-defined bounds and approximations of the p-value under the null hypothesis that the model is calibrated, significantly improving the interpretability of calibration measures, which otherwise lack any meaningful unit or scale.

We study calibration measures in a sequential prediction setup.

Probabilistic predictions are at the heart of modern data science.

We study calibration measures in a sequential prediction setup.

Probabilistic predictions are at the heart of modern data science.

Calibrated predictions can be reliably interpreted as probabilities. An important step towards achieving better calibration is to design an appropriate calibration measure to meaningfully assess the miscalibration level of a predictor. A recent line of work initiated by Haghtalab et al. [2024] studies the design of truthful calibration measures: a truthful measure is minimized when a predictor outputs the true probabilities, whereas a non-truthful measure incentivizes the predictor to lie so as to appear more calibrated. All previous calibration measures were non-truthful until Hartline et al. [2025] introduced the first perfectly truthful calibration measures for binary prediction tasks in the batch setting. We introduce a perfectly truthful calibration measure for multi-class prediction tasks, generalizing the work of Hartline et al. [2025] beyond binary prediction. We study common methods of extending calibration measures from binary to multi-class prediction and identify ones that do or do not preserve truthfulness. In addition to truthfulness, we mathematically prove and empirically verify that our calibration measure exhibits superior robustness: it robustly preserves the ordering between dominant and dominated predictors, regardless of the choice of hyperparameters (bin sizes). This result addresses the non-robustness issue of binned ECE, which has been observed repeatedly in prior work.

Calibration is a classical notion from the forecasting literature which aims to address the question: how should predicted probabilities be interpreted? In a world where we only get to observe (discrete) outcomes, how should we evaluate a predictor that hypothesizes (continuous) probabilities over possible outcomes? The study of calibration has seen a surge of recent interest, given the ubiquity of probabilistic predictions in machine learning. This survey describes recent work on the foundational questions of how to define and measure calibration error, and what these measures mean for downstream decision makers who wish to use the predictions to make decisions. A unifying viewpoint that emerges is that of calibration as a form of indistinguishability, between the world hypothesized by the predictor and the real world (governed by nature or the Bayes optimal predictor). In this view, various calibration measures quantify the extent to which the two worlds can be told apart by certain classes of distinguishers or statistical measures.