mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Testable and Actionable Calibration for Full Swap Regret

arXiv 2605.17749 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.LG stat.MLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI generated predictions increasingly inform decision making in critical tasks, and therefore must be trustworthy. One widely used measure of trustworthiness is calibration, which requires that the predictions match the true frequencies and can be treated like real probabilities of a given outcome. However, defining calibration is subtle, and designing good measures of calibration error has been an active topic of recent research. The first goal is to find calibration measures that are actionable, meaning they can inform decision makers about their utility loss when predictions are treated as true probabilities, which is known as swap regret. The second goal is to find calibration measures that are testable, meaning that calibration error can be measured from a small sample of predictions and outcomes. Although these are very basic requirements, there is no existing calibration measure that fully satisfies both properties, and all existing measures relax actionability by bounding a weaker notion of swap regret, or relax testability by having suboptimal estimation error. We introduce a new calibration measure, Soft-Binned Calibration Decision Loss (SCDL), which we prove is fully actionable without weakening either requirement, and testable with nearly optimal error rate. In addition, SCDL satisfies other desired properties such as continuity and consistency. We also provide a set of experiments confirming that the theoretical advantages of SCDL compared to other measures lead to better performance in practice.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

25 of 37 references.

References · 25

  1. 2021Omnipredictorscited by 71
  2. 2022Loss Minimization through the Lens of Outcome Indistinguishabilitycited by 61
  3. 2022A Unifying Theory of Distance from Calibrationcited by 51
  4. 2020Stronger Calibration Lower Bounds via Sidesteppingcited by 38
  5. 2023Oracle Efficient Online Multicalibration and Omnipredictioncited by 36
  6. 2023When Does Optimizing a Proper Loss Yield Calibration?cited by 35
  7. 2025Near-Optimal Algorithms for Omnipredictioncited by 33
  8. 2022Making Decisions under Outcome Performativitycited by 32
  9. 2022Metrics of calibration for probabilistic predictionscited by 31
  10. 2023Swap Agnostic Learning, or Characterizing Omniprediction via Multicalibrationcited by 31
  11. 2024Forecasting for Swap Regret for All Downstream Agentscited by 24
  12. 2024Breaking the T2/3 Barrier for Sequential Calibrationcited by 18
13 more
  1. 2024On Computationally Efficient Multi-Class Calibrationcited by 16
  2. 2024Omnipredictors for Regression and the Approximate Rank of Convex Functionscited by 14
  3. 2025Sample Efficient Omniprediction and Downstream Swap Regret for Non-Linear Lossescited by 14
  4. 2025High dimensional online calibration in polynomial timecited by 12
  5. 2025High-Dimensional Calibration from Swap Regretcited by 12
  6. 2025Truthfulness of Decision-Theoretic Calibration Measurescited by 9
  7. 2025Smooth Calibration and Decision Makingcited by 9
  8. 2024Truthfulness of Calibration Measurescited by 7
  9. 2024Omnipredicting Single-Index Models with Multi-Index Modelscited by 7
  10. 2025A Perfectly Truthful Calibration Measurecited by 4
  11. 2025Efficient Calibration for Decision Makingcited by 3
  12. 2026Simultaneous Blackwell Approachability and Applications to Multiclass Omnipredictioncited by 3
  13. 2026The Importance of Being Smoothly Calibratedcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.