Calibrated Learning to Defer with One-vs-All Classifiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03673v1
• Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 06:24:06 GMT
• Title: Calibrated Learning to Defer with One-vs-All Classifiers
• Abstract summary: Learning to defer (L2D) framework has the potential to make AI systems safer. For a given input, the system can defer the decision to a human if the human is more likely than the model to take the correct action. We study the calibration of L2D systems, investigating if the probabilities they output are sound.
• Score: 1.14219428942199
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The learning to defer (L2D) framework has the potential to make AI systems safer. For a given input, the system can defer the decision to a human if the human is more likely than the model to take the correct action. We study the calibration of L2D systems, investigating if the probabilities they output are sound. We find that Mozannar & Sontag's (2020) multiclass framework is not calibrated with respect to expert correctness. Moreover, it is not even guaranteed to produce valid probabilities due to its parameterization being degenerate for this purpose. We propose an L2D system based on one-vs-all classifiers that is able to produce calibrated probabilities of expert correctness. Furthermore, our loss function is also a consistent surrogate for multiclass L2D, like Mozannar & Sontag's (2020). Our experiments verify that not only is our system calibrated, but this benefit comes at no cost to accuracy. Our model's accuracy is always comparable (and often superior) to Mozannar & Sontag's (2020) model's in tasks ranging from hate speech detection to galaxy classification to diagnosis of skin lesions.

Related papers

• Dual-Stage Reweighted MoE for Long-Tailed Egocentric Mistake Detection [85.0189917888094]
  We propose a Dual-Stage Reweighted Mixture-of-Experts (DR-MoE) framework to handle the challenges posed by subtle and infrequent mistakes.<n>The proposed method achieves strong performance, particularly in identifying rare and ambiguous mistake instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T12:00:42Z)
• SciML Agents: Write the Solver, Not the Solution [69.5021018644143]
  We introduce two new datasets: a diagnostic dataset of adversarial "misleading" problems; and a large-scale benchmark of 1,000 diverse ODE tasks.<n>We evaluate open- and closed-source LLM models along two axes: (i) unguided versus guided prompting with domain-specific knowledge; and (ii) off-the-shelf versus fine-tuned variants.<n>Preliminary results indicate that careful prompting and fine-tuning can yield a specialized LLM agent capable of reliably solving simple ODE problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T02:53:57Z)
• Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty [59.97939500426759]
  This paper describes RLCR, an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and confidence estimation.<n>We show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy.<n>We also demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:56:01Z)
• Rethinking Early Stopping: Refine, Then Calibrate [49.966899634962374]
  We show that calibration error and refinement error are not minimized simultaneously during training. We introduce a new metric for early stopping and hyper parameter tuning that makes it possible to minimize refinement error during training. Our method integrates seamlessly with any architecture and consistently improves performance across diverse classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T15:03:54Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation for 3D Object Detection via Evidential Learning [63.61283174146648]
  We introduce a framework for quantifying uncertainty in 3D object detection by leveraging an evidential learning loss on Bird's Eye View representations in the 3D detector. We demonstrate both the efficacy and importance of these uncertainty estimates on identifying out-of-distribution scenes, poorly localized objects, and missing (false negative) detections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T13:13:32Z)
• Improving Label Error Detection and Elimination with Uncertainty Quantification [5.184615738004059]
  We develop novel, model-agnostic algorithms for Uncertainty Quantification-Based Label Error Detection (UQ-LED) Our UQ-LED algorithms outperform state-of-the-art confident learning in identifying label errors. We propose a novel approach to generate realistic, class-dependent label errors synthetically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-15T15:17:52Z)
• Learning to Defer to a Population: A Meta-Learning Approach [4.64209268422757]
  We formulate an L2D system that can cope with never-before-seen experts at test-time. We employ an attention mechanism that is able to look for points in the context set that are similar to a given test point. In the experiments, we validate our methods on image recognition, traffic sign detection, and skin lesion diagnosis benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T06:10:28Z)
• Confidence-Based Model Selection: When to Take Shortcuts for Subpopulation Shifts [119.22672589020394]
  We propose COnfidence-baSed MOdel Selection (CosMoS), where model confidence can effectively guide model selection. We evaluate CosMoS on four datasets with spurious correlations, each with multiple test sets with varying levels of data distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:48:15Z)
• Bridging Precision and Confidence: A Train-Time Loss for Calibrating Object Detection [58.789823426981044]
  We propose a novel auxiliary loss formulation that aims to align the class confidence of bounding boxes with the accurateness of predictions. Our results reveal that our train-time loss surpasses strong calibration baselines in reducing calibration error for both in and out-domain scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T08:56:21Z)
• Who Should Predict? Exact Algorithms For Learning to Defer to Humans [40.22768241509553]
  We show that prior approaches can fail to find a human-AI system with low misclassification error. We give a mixed-integer-linear-programming (MILP) formulation that can optimally solve the problem in the linear setting. We provide a novel surrogate loss function that is realizable-consistent and performs well empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-15T21:57:36Z)
• A Close Look into the Calibration of Pre-trained Language Models [56.998539510508515]
  Pre-trained language models (PLMs) may fail in giving reliable estimates of their predictive uncertainty. We study the dynamic change in PLMs' calibration performance in training. We extend two recently proposed learnable methods that directly collect data to train models to have reasonable confidence estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T21:31:07Z)
• Learning to Defer to Multiple Experts: Consistent Surrogate Losses, Confidence Calibration, and Conformal Ensembles [0.966840768820136]
  We study the statistical properties of learning to defer (L2D) to multiple experts. We address the open problems of deriving a consistent surrogate loss, confidence calibration, and principled ensembling of experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-30T21:27:29Z)
• Beyond calibration: estimating the grouping loss of modern neural networks [68.8204255655161]
  Proper scoring rule theory shows that given the calibration loss, the missing piece to characterize individual errors is the grouping loss. We show that modern neural network architectures in vision and NLP exhibit grouping loss, notably in distribution shifts settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T07:04:20Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.