Confidence calibration of classification models is a technique to estimate the true posterior probability of the predicted class, which is critical for ensuring reliable decision-making in practical applications. Existing confidence calibration methods mostly use statistical techniques to estimate the calibration curve from data or fit a user-defined calibration function, but often overlook fully mining and utilizing the prior distribution behind the calibration curve. However, a well-informed prior distribution can provide valuable insights beyond the empirical data under the limited data or low-density regions of confidence scores. To fill this gap, this paper proposes a new method that integrates the prior distribution behind the calibration curve with empirical data to estimate a continuous calibration curve, which is realized by modeling the sampling process of calibration data as a binomial process and maximizing the likelihood function of the binomial process. We prove that the calibration curve estimating method is Lipschitz continuous with respect to data distribution and requires a sample size of $3/B$ of that required for histogram binning, where $B$ represents the number of bins. Also, a new calibration metric ($TCE_{bpm}$), which leverages the estimated calibration curve to estimate the true calibration error (TCE), is designed. $TCE_{bpm}$ is proven to be a consistent calibration measure. Furthermore, realistic calibration datasets can be generated by the binomial process modeling from a preset true calibration curve and confidence score distribution, which can serve as a benchmark to measure and compare the discrepancy between existing calibration metrics and the true calibration error. The effectiveness of our calibration method and metric are verified in real-world and simulated data.

Calibration measures and reliability diagrams are two fundamental tools for measuring and interpreting the calibration of probabilistic predictors. Calibration measures quantify the degree of miscalibration, and reliability diagrams visualize the structure of this miscalibration. However, the most common constructions of reliability diagrams and calibration measures -- binning and ECE -- both suffer from well-known flaws (e.g. discontinuity). We show that a simple modification fixes both constructions: first smooth the observations using an RBF kernel, then compute the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) of this smoothed function. We prove that with a careful choice of bandwidth, this method yields a calibration measure that is well-behaved in the sense of (B{\l}asiok, Gopalan, Hu, and Nakkiran 2023a) -- a consistent calibration measure. We call this measure the SmoothECE. Moreover, the reliability diagram obtained from this smoothed function visually encodes the SmoothECE, just as binned reliability diagrams encode the BinnedECE. We also provide a Python package with simple, hyperparameter-free methods for measuring and plotting calibration: `pip install relplot\`.

We study the fundamental question of how to define and measure the distance from calibration for probabilistic predictors. While the notion of perfect calibration is well-understood, there is no consensus on how to quantify the distance from perfect calibration. Numerous calibration measures have been proposed in the literature, but it is unclear how they compare to each other, and many popular measures such as Expected Calibration Error (ECE) fail to satisfy basic properties like continuity. We present a rigorous framework for analyzing calibration measures, inspired by the literature on property testing. We propose a ground-truth notion of distance from calibration: the $\ell_1$ distance to the nearest perfectly calibrated predictor. We define a consistent calibration measure as one that is polynomially related to this distance. Applying our framework, we identify three calibration measures that are consistent and can be estimated efficiently: smooth calibration, interval calibration, and Laplace kernel calibration. The former two give quadratic approximations to the ground truth distance, which we show is information-theoretically optimal in a natural model for measuring calibration which we term the prediction-only access model. Our work thus establishes fundamental lower and upper bounds on measuring the distance to calibration, and also provides theoretical justification for preferring certain metrics (like Laplace kernel calibration) in practice.