mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Calibration for the (Computationally-Identifiable) Masses

arXiv 1711.08513 ↗First posted 22 Nov 2017cs.LG cs.DS stat.MLcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As algorithms increasingly inform and influence decisions made about individuals, it becomes increasingly important to address concerns that these algorithms might be discriminatory. The output of an algorithm can be discriminatory for many reasons, most notably: (1) the data used to train the algorithm might be biased (in various ways) to favor certain populations over others; (2) the analysis of this training data might inadvertently or maliciously introduce biases that are not borne out in the data. This work focuses on the latter concern. We develop and study multicalbration -- a new measure of algorithmic fairness that aims to mitigate concerns about discrimination that is introduced in the process of learning a predictor from data. Multicalibration guarantees accurate (calibrated) predictions for every subpopulation that can be identified within a specified class of computations. We think of the class as being quite rich; in particular, it can contain many overlapping subgroups of a protected group. We show that in many settings this strong notion of protection from discrimination is both attainable and aligned with the goal of obtaining accurate predictions. Along the way, we present new algorithms for learning a multicalibrated predictor, study the computational complexity of this task, and draw new connections to computational learning models such as agnostic learning.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2017.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 7; 2022: 4; 2023: 3; 2024: 5; 2025: 4.

23 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2021Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspectivecited by 93
  2. 2021Uncertainty Toolbox: an Open-Source Library for Assessing, Visualizing, and Improving Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 57
  3. 2022Low-Degree Multicalibrationcited by 45
  4. 2021Local Calibration: Metrics and Recalibrationcited by 24
  5. 2022Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcarecited by 16
  6. 2024Fair Risk Control: A Generalized Framework for Calibrating Multi-group Fairness Riskscited by 14
  7. 2021Individually Fair Gradient Boostingcited by 12
  8. 2021A comparison of approaches to improve worst-case predictive model performance over patient subpopulationscited by 12
  9. 2022Bottlenecks CLUB: Unifying Information-Theoretic Trade-offs Among Complexity, Leakage, and Utilitycited by 12
  10. 2022Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibrationcited by 8
  11. 2021Measuring Model Fairness under Noisy Covariates: A Theoretical Perspectivecited by 7
  12. 2023Optimizing fairness tradeoffs in machine learning with multiobjective meta-modelscited by 6
11 more
  1. 2021Precarity: Modeling the Long Term Effects of Compounded Decisions on Individual Instabilitycited by 5
  2. 2024Intersectional Unfairness Discoverycited by 5
  3. 2024Evaluating Model Performance Under Worst-case Subpopulationscited by 5
  4. 2024Learning With Multi-Group Guarantees For Clusterable Subpopulationscited by 3
  5. 2023Designing Equitable Algorithmscited by 2
  6. 2023Agnostic Multi-Robust Learning Using ERMcited by 2
  7. 2025Conformal Prediction Adaptive to Unknown Subpopulation Shiftscited by 2
  8. 2025Constrained Online Decision-Making: A Unified Frameworkcited by 1
  9. 2025Doubly-Regressing Approach for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 1
  10. 2025On the Role of Calibration in Benchmarking Algorithmic Fairness for Skin Cancer Detectioncited by 1
  11. 2024Revisiting Technical Bias Mitigation Strategiescited by 0