mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

I-trustworthy Models. A framework for trustworthiness evaluation of probabilistic classifiers

arXiv 2501.15617 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2025stat.ML cs.LG stat.MEcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As probabilistic models continue to permeate various facets of our society and contribute to scientific advancements, it becomes a necessity to go beyond traditional metrics such as predictive accuracy and error rates and assess their trustworthiness. Grounded in the competence-based theory of trust, this work formalizes I-trustworthy framework -- a novel framework for assessing the trustworthiness of probabilistic classifiers for inference tasks by linking local calibration to trustworthiness. To assess I-trustworthiness, we use the local calibration error (LCE) and develop a method of hypothesis-testing. This method utilizes a kernel-based test statistic, Kernel Local Calibration Error (KLCE), to test local calibration of a probabilistic classifier. This study provides theoretical guarantees by offering convergence bounds for an unbiased estimator of KLCE. Additionally, we present a diagnostic tool designed to identify and measure biases in cases of miscalibration. The effectiveness of the proposed test statistic is demonstrated through its application to both simulated and real-world datasets. Finally, LCE of related recalibration methods is studied, and we provide evidence of insufficiency of existing methods to achieve I-trustworthiness.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2025.

Builds on

21 of 67 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  4. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  5. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  6. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  7. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 174
  8. 2019Evaluating model calibration in classificationcited by 168
  9. 2019Inherent Tradeoffs in Learning Fair Representationscited by 144
  10. 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
  11. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 141
  12. 2018The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairnesscited by 95
9 more
  1. 2019Calibration tests in multi-class classification: A unifying frameworkcited by 79
  2. 2021Conditional Distributional Treatment Effect with Kernel Conditional Mean Embeddings and U-Statistic Regressioncited by 40
  3. 2022Beyond calibration: estimating the grouping loss of modern neural networkscited by 32
  4. 2021Local Calibration: Metrics and Recalibrationcited by 24
  5. 2023Calibration by Distribution Matching: Trainable Kernel Calibration Metricscited by 20
  6. 2023On the Richness of Calibrationcited by 9
  7. 2022Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibrationcited by 8
  8. 2018ActiveRemediation: The Search for Lead Pipes in Flint, Michigancited by 2
  9. 2024U-Trustworthy Models.Reliability, Competence, and Confidence in Decision-Makingcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.