A reliable estimate of the full conditional distribution of a multivariate response given a set of covariates is essential in many decision-making applications. However, misspecified or miscalibrated models can lead to poor approximations of the joint distribution, resulting in unreliable predictions and suboptimal decisions. Standard recalibration methods are largely restricted to univariate settings, and while conformal prediction techniques yield multivariate regions with coverage guarantees, they do not provide an explicit form of the underlying probability distribution. We address this gap by first introducing a novel notion of latent calibration, which assesses probabilistic calibration in the latent space of conditional invertible generative models such as normalizing flows and flow matching. Second, we propose latent recalibration (LR), a post-hoc model recalibration method that learns a transformation of the latent space with finite-sample bounds on latent calibration. Unlike existing recalibration methods, LR produces a recalibrated distribution with an explicit multivariate density function while remaining computationally efficient. Extensive experiments on both tabular and image datasets show that LR consistently improves latent calibration error and the negative log-likelihood of the recalibrated models.

Optimal decision making requires that classifiers produce uncertainty estimates consistent with their empirical accuracy. However, deep neural networks are often under-or over-confident in their predictions. Consequently, methods have been developed to improve the calibration of their predictive uncertainty both during training and post-hoc. In this work, we propose differentiable losses to improve calibration based on a soft (continuous) version of the binning operation underlying popular calibration-error estimators. When incorporated into training, these soft calibration losses achieve state-of-the-art single-model ECE across multiple datasets with less than 1% decrease in accuracy. For instance, we observe an 82% reduction in ECE (70% relative to the post-hoc rescaled ECE) in exchange for a 0.7% relative decrease in accuracy relative to the cross entropy baseline on CIFAR-100.When incorporated post-training, the soft-binning-based calibration error objective improves upon temperature scaling, a popular recalibration method. Overall, experiments across losses and datasets demonstrate that using calibration-sensitive procedures yield better uncertainty estimates under dataset shift than the standard practice of using a cross entropy loss and post-hoc recalibration methods.

Reliably characterizing the full conditional distribution of a multivariate response variable given a set of covariates is crucial for trustworthy decision-making. However, misspecified or miscalibrated multivariate models may yield a poor approximation of the joint distribution of the response variables, leading to unreliable predictions and suboptimal decisions. Furthermore, standard recalibration methods are primarily limited to univariate settings, while conformal prediction techniques, despite generating multivariate prediction regions with coverage guarantees, do not provide a full probability density function. We address this gap by first introducing a novel notion of latent calibration, which assesses probabilistic calibration in the latent space of a conditional normalizing flow. Second, we propose latent recalibration (LR), a novel post-hoc model recalibration method that learns a transformation of the latent space with finite-sample bounds on latent calibration. Unlike existing methods, LR produces a recalibrated distribution with an explicit multivariate density function while remaining computationally efficient. Extensive experiments on both tabular and image datasets show that LR consistently improves latent calibration error and the negative log-likelihood of the recalibrated models.

Now suppose we are given an unlabeled target sample with unknown label shift.

In safety-critical applications data-driven models must not only be accurate but also provide reliable uncertainty estimates. This property, commonly referred to as calibration, is essential for risk-aware decision-making. In regression a wide variety of calibration metrics and recalibration methods have emerged. However, these metrics differ significantly in their definitions, assumptions and scales, making it difficult to interpret and compare results across studies. Moreover, most recalibration methods have been evaluated using only a small subset of metrics, leaving it unclear whether improvements generalize across different notions of calibration. In this work, we systematically extract and categorize regression calibration metrics from the literature and benchmark these metrics independently of specific modelling methods or recalibration approaches. Through controlled experiments with real-world, synthetic and artificially miscalibrated data, we demonstrate that calibration metrics frequently produce conflicting results. Our analysis reveals substantial inconsistencies: many metrics disagree in their evaluation of the same recalibration result, and some even indicate contradictory conclusions. This inconsistency is particularly concerning as it potentially allows cherry-picking of metrics to create misleading impressions of success. We identify the Expected Normalized Calibration Error (ENCE) and the Coverage Width-based Criterion (CWC) as the most dependable metrics in our tests. Our findings highlight the critical role of metric selection in calibration research.

Optimal decision making requires that classifiers produce uncertainty estimates consistent with their empirical accuracy. However, deep neural networks are often under- or over-confident in their predictions. Consequently, methods have been developed to improve the calibration of their predictive uncertainty both during training and post-hoc. In this work, we propose differentiable losses to improve calibration based on a soft (continuous) version of the binning operation underlying popular calibration-error estimators. When incorporated into training, these soft calibration losses achieve state-of-the-art single-model ECE across multiple datasets with less than 1% decrease in accuracy. For instance, we observe an 82% reduction in ECE (70% relative to the post-hoc rescaled ECE) in exchange for a 0.7% relative decrease in accuracy relative to the cross entropy baseline on CIFAR-100.When incorporated post-training, the soft-binning-based calibration error objective improves upon temperature scaling, a popular recalibration method.

Optimal decision making requires that classifiers produce uncertainty estimates consistent with their empirical accuracy. However, deep neural networks are often under- or over-confident in their predictions. Consequently, methods have been developed to improve the calibration of their predictive uncertainty both during training and post-hoc. In this work, we propose differentiable losses to improve calibration based on a soft (continuous) version of the binning operation underlying popular calibration-error estimators. When incorporated into training, these soft calibration losses achieve state-of-the-art single-model ECE across multiple datasets with less than 1% decrease in accuracy. For instance, we observe an 82% reduction in ECE (70% relative to the post-hoc rescaled ECE) in exchange for a 0.7% relative decrease in accuracy relative to the cross entropy baseline on CIFAR-100.When incorporated post-training, the soft-binning-based calibration error objective improves upon temperature scaling, a popular recalibration method.