Calibration ensures that probabilistic forecasts meaningfully capture uncertainty by requiring that predicted probabilities align with empirical frequencies. However, many existing calibration methods are specialized for post-hoc recalibration, which can worsen the sharpness of forecasts. Drawing on the insight that calibration can be viewed as a distribution matching task, we introduce kernel-based calibration metrics that unify and generalize popular forms of calibration for both classification and regression. These metrics admit differentiable sample estimates, making it easy to incorporate a calibration objective into empirical risk minimization. Furthermore, we provide intuitive mechanisms to tailor calibration metrics to a decision task, and enforce accurate loss estimation and no regret decisions. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that employing these metrics as regularizers enhances calibration, sharpness, and decision-making across a range of regression and classification tasks, outperforming methods relying solely on post-hoc recalibration.

Calibration ensures that probabilistic forecasts meaningfully capture uncertainty by requiring that predicted probabilities align with empirical frequencies. However, many existing calibration methods are specialized for post-hoc recalibration, which can worsen the sharpness of forecasts. Drawing on the insight that calibration can be viewed as a distribution matching task, we introduce kernel-based calibration metrics that unify and generalize popular forms of calibration for both classification and regression. These metrics admit differentiable sample estimates, making it easy to incorporate a calibration objective into empirical risk minimization. Furthermore, we provide intuitive mechanisms to tailor calibration metrics to a decision task, and enforce accurate loss estimation and no regret decisions. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that employing these metrics as regularizers enhances calibration, sharpness, and decision-making across a range of regression and classification tasks, outperforming methods relying solely on post-hoc recalibration.

The ability to ensure that a classifier gives reliable confidence scores is essential to ensure informed decision-making. To this end, recent work has focused on miscalibration, i.e., the over or under confidence of model scores. Yet calibration is not enough: even a perfectly calibrated classifier with the best possible accuracy can have confidence scores that are far from the true posterior probabilities. This is due to the grouping loss, created by samples with the same confidence scores but different true posterior probabilities. Proper scoring rule theory shows that given the calibration loss, the missing piece to characterize individual errors is the grouping loss. While there are many estimators of the calibration loss, none exists for the grouping loss in standard settings. Here, we propose an estimator to approximate the grouping loss. We show that modern neural network architectures in vision and NLP exhibit grouping loss, notably in distribution shifts settings, which highlights the importance of pre-production validation.