Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2412.10658

Combining Priors with Experience: Confidence Calibration Based on Binomial Process Modeling

Jinzong Dong·Zhaohui Jiang·Dong Pan·Haoyang Yu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Confidence calibration of classification models is a technique to estimate the true posterior probability of the predicted class, which is critical for ensuring reliable decision-making in practical applications. Existing confidence calibration methods mostly use statistical techniques to estimate the calibration curve from data or fit a user-defined calibration function, but often overlook fully mining and utilizing the prior distribution behind the calibration curve. However, a well-informed prior distribution can provide valuable insights beyond the empirical data under the limited data or low-density regions of confidence scores. To fill this gap, this paper proposes a new method that integrates the prior distribution behind the calibration curve with empirical data to estimate a continuous calibration curve, which is realized by modeling the sampling process of calibration data as a binomial process and maximizing the likelihood function of the binomial process. We prove that the calibration curve estimating method is Lipschitz continuous with respect to data distribution and requires a sample size of $3/B$ of that required for histogram binning, where $B$ represents the number of bins. Also, a new calibration metric ($TCE_{bpm}$), which leverages the estimated calibration curve to estimate the true calibration error (TCE), is designed. $TCE_{bpm}$ is proven to be a consistent calibration measure. Furthermore, realistic calibration datasets can be generated by the binomial process modeling from a preset true calibration curve and confidence score distribution, which can serve as a benchmark to measure and compare the discrepancy between existing calibration metrics and the true calibration error. The effectiveness of our calibration method and metric are verified in real-world and simulated data.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEcs.AIcs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jinzong Dong, Zhaohui Jiang, Dong Pan, Haoyang Yu. 2024-12-14. Combining Priors with Experience: Confidence Calibration Based on Binomial Process Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10658

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗