Should prediction models always deliver a prediction? In the pursuit of maximum predictive performance, critical considerations of reliability and fairness are often overshadowed, particularly when it comes to the role of uncertainty. Selective regression, also known as the "reject option," allows models to abstain from predictions in cases of considerable uncertainty. Initially proposed seven decades ago, approaches to selective regression have mostly focused on distribution-based proxies for measuring uncertainty, particularly conditional variance. However, this focus neglects the significant influence of model-specific biases on a model's performance. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to selective regression by leveraging conformal prediction, which provides grounded confidence measures for individual predictions based on model-specific biases. In addition, we propose a standardized evaluation framework to allow proper comparison of selective regression approaches. Via an extensive experimental approach, we demonstrate how our proposed approach, conformalized selective regression, demonstrates an advantage over multiple state-of-the-art baselines.

With the wide adoption of machine learning techniques, requirements have evolved beyond sheer high performance, often requiring models to be trustworthy. A common approach to increase the trustworthiness of such systems is to allow them to refrain from predicting. Such a framework is known as selective prediction. While selective prediction for classification tasks has been widely analyzed, the problem of selective regression is understudied. This paper presents a novel approach to selective regression that utilizes model-agnostic non-parametric uncertainty estimation. Our proposed framework showcases superior performance compared to state-of-the-art selective regressors, as demonstrated through comprehensive benchmarking on 69 datasets. Finally, we use explainable AI techniques to gain an understanding of the drivers behind selective regression. We implement our selective regression method in the open-source Python package doubt and release the code used to reproduce our experiments.

We propose a learning framework for calibrating predictive models to make loss-controlling prediction for exchangeable data, which extends our recently proposed conformal loss-controlling prediction for more general cases. By comparison, the predictors built by the proposed loss-controlling approach are not limited to set predictors, and the loss function can be any measurable function without the monotone assumption. To control the loss values in an efficient way, we introduce transformations preserving exchangeability to prove finite-sample controlling guarantee when the test label is obtained, and then develop an approximation approach to construct predictors. The transformations can be built on any predefined function, which include using optimization algorithms for parameter searching. This approach is a natural extension of conformal loss-controlling prediction, since it can be reduced to the latter when the set predictors have the nesting property and the loss functions are monotone. Our proposed method is applied to selective regression and high-impact weather forecasting problems, which demonstrates its effectiveness for general loss-controlling prediction.

Knowing when to trust a model's predictions is not always an easy challenge for professionals who use machine-learning models to aid in decision-making, especially since these models are frequently so complicated that their inner workings remain a mystery. Selective regression is a method in which the model calculates its confidence level for each prediction and rejects predictions if its confidence is too low. After then, a person can look over those situations, gather further data, and manually decide on each one. While researchers are working on new models, regulators are trying to set a standard in the usage of artificial intelligence. Two months ago we discussed the EU AI Act and now the UK prepares the AI rulebook.

For workers who use machine-learning models to help them make decisions, knowing when to trust a model's predictions is not always an easy task, especially since these models are often so complex that their inner workings remain a mystery. Users sometimes employ a technique, known as selective regression, in which the model estimates its confidence level for each prediction and will reject predictions when its confidence is too low. Then a human can examine those cases, gather additional information, and make a decision about each one manually. But while selective regression has been shown to improve the overall performance of a model, researchers at MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab have discovered that the technique can have the opposite effect for underrepresented groups of people in a dataset. As the model's confidence increases with selective regression, its chance of making the right prediction also increases, but this does not always happen for all subgroups.

For workers who use machine-learning models to help them make decisions, knowing when to trust a model's predictions is not always an easy task, especially since these models are often so complex that their inner workings remain a mystery. Users sometimes employ a technique, known as selective regression, in which the model estimates its confidence level for each prediction and will reject predictions when its confidence is too low. Then a human can examine those cases, gather additional information, and make a decision about each one manually. But while selective regression has been shown to improve the overall performance of a model, researchers at MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab have discovered that the technique can have the opposite effect for underrepresented groups of people in a dataset. As the model's confidence increases with selective regression, its chance of making the right prediction also increases, but this does not always happen for all subgroups.