2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2012.12670
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing whether a Learning Procedure is Calibrated

Abstract: A learning procedure takes as input a dataset and performs inference for the parameters θ of a model that is assumed to have given rise to the dataset. Here we consider learning procedures whose output is a probability distribution, representing uncertainty about θ after seeing the dataset. Bayesian inference is a prime example of such a procedure but one can also construct other learning procedures that return distributional output. This paper studies conditions for a learning procedure to be considered calib… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

3
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the purpose of this exploratory work, values of Z that are orders of magnitude smaller than 1 are interpreted as indicating that the distributional output from the PNM is under-confident, while values that are orders of magnitude greater than 1 indicate that the PNM is over-confident. A PNM that is neither under nor over confident is said to be calibrated (precise definitions of the term "calibrated" can be found in Cockayne et al, 2021;Karvonen et al, 2020, but the results we present are straight-forward to interpret using the informal approach just described). Our goal in this work is to develop an approximately Bayesian PNM for nonlinear PDEs that is both accurate and calibrated.…”
Section: Experimental Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…For the purpose of this exploratory work, values of Z that are orders of magnitude smaller than 1 are interpreted as indicating that the distributional output from the PNM is under-confident, while values that are orders of magnitude greater than 1 indicate that the PNM is over-confident. A PNM that is neither under nor over confident is said to be calibrated (precise definitions of the term "calibrated" can be found in Cockayne et al, 2021;Karvonen et al, 2020, but the results we present are straight-forward to interpret using the informal approach just described). Our goal in this work is to develop an approximately Bayesian PNM for nonlinear PDEs that is both accurate and calibrated.…”
Section: Experimental Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…We review the definition of calibration for probabilistic linear solvers (Definition 17, Lemma 18), discuss the difference between certain random variables (Remark 19), present two illustrations (Examples 20 and 21), and explain why this notion of calibration does not apply to BayesCG under the Krylov prior (Remark 22). Informally, a probabilistic numerical solver is calibrated if its posterior distributions accurately model the uncertainty in the solution [6,7].…”
Section: Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the true quantity of interest q * was genuinely a sample from Q(0, •)|D, then S 2 would follow a χ 2 distribution with |T | degrees of freedom. This observation enables the calibration of a PN method to be assessed [66]. Both metrics naturally require an accurate approximation to q * to act as the ground truth, which is available using brute force computation in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 but not in Section 4.3.…”
Section: Experimental Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%