Multicalibrated Partitions for Importance Weights
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The ratio between the probability that two distributions R and P give to points x are known as importance weights or propensity scores and play a fundamental role in many different fields, most notably, statistics and machine learning. Among its applications, importance weights are central to domain adaptation, anomaly detection, and estimations of various divergences such as the KL divergence. We consider the common setting where R and P are only given through samples from each distribution. The vast literature on estimating importance weights is either heuristic, or makes strong assumptions about R and P or on the importance weights themselves. In this paper, we explore a computational perspective to the estimation of importance weights, which factors in the limitations and possibilities obtainable with bounded computational resources. We significantly strengthen previous work that use the MaxEntropy approach, that define the importance weights based on a distribution Q closest to P, that looks the same as R on every set C ∈ C, where C may be a huge collection of sets. We show that the MaxEntropy approach may fail to assign high average scores to sets C ∈ C, even when the average of ground truth weights for the set is evidently large. We similarly show that it may overestimate the average scores to sets C ∈ C. We therefore formulate Sandwiching bounds as a notion of set-wise accuracy for importance weights. We study these bounds to show that they capture natural completeness and soundness requirements from the weights. We present an efficient algorithm that under standard learnability assumptions computes weights which satisfy these bounds. Our techniques rely on a new notion of multicalibrated partitions of the domain of the distributions, which appear to be useful objects in their own right.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2021.
Builds on
5 of 60 references.
References · 5
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
- 2018Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classificationcited by 221
- 2020Outcome Indistinguishabilitycited by 74
- 2020Moment Multicalibration for Uncertainty Estimationcited by 63
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
10 papers.
- 2021Omnipredictorscited by 71
- 2022Loss Minimization through the Lens of Outcome Indistinguishabilitycited by 61
- 2022Low-Degree Multicalibrationcited by 44
- 2023Swap Agnostic Learning, or Characterizing Omniprediction via Multicalibrationcited by 31
- 2023Loss Minimization Yields Multicalibration for Large Neural Networkscited by 19
- 2025Representative Language Generationcited by 18
- 2024When is Multicalibration Post-Processing Necessary?cited by 16
- 2022Comparative Learning: A Sample Complexity Theory for Two Hypothesis Classescited by 8
- 2025How Global Calibration Strengthens Multiaccuracycited by 8
- 2022KL Divergence Estimation with Multi-group Attributioncited by 0
- 2025Representative Language Generation27 May 2025
- 2025How Global Calibration Strengthens Multiaccuracy21 Apr 2025
- 2024When is Multicalibration Post-Processing Necessary?10 Jun 2024
- 2023Loss Minimization Yields Multicalibration for Large Neural Networks19 Apr 2023
- 2023Swap Agnostic Learning, or Characterizing Omniprediction via Multicalibration13 Feb 2023
- 2022Comparative Learning: A Sample Complexity Theory for Two Hypothesis Classes16 Nov 2022
- 2022Loss Minimization through the Lens of Outcome Indistinguishability16 Oct 2022
- 2022Low-Degree Multicalibration2 Mar 2022
- 2022KL Divergence Estimation with Multi-group Attribution28 Feb 2022
- 2021Omnipredictors11 Sep 2021