Papers for

statistical learning system designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Calibrated multiaccuracy sample complexity differs for random and deterministic predictors

Calibrated Multiaccuracy: Deterministic and Randomized Sample Complexity

Abstract: Calibrated multiaccuracy asks that a predictor be globally calibrated and multiaccurate with respect to a bounded test family $G$; that is, its residuals should be uncorrelated with every test $g(x)\in G$. This weakening of multicalibration suffices for many applications. Its sample complexity was not known to improve on that of full multicalibration, which is $\widetildeΘ\left(\frac{\log|G|}{\varepsilon^2} + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{3}}\right)$ when $|G|$ is at least a sufficiently large power of $\log(1/\varepsilon)$. We resolve the sample complexity of $\varepsilon$-calibrated multiaccuracy, showing that it scales as $$ \widetildeΘ\left(\frac{\log|G|}{\varepsilon^2} + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{5/2}}\right), $$ separating it from the complexity of multicalibration. The upper bound is obtained by an algorithm that outputs a randomized predictor. For deterministic predictors, we establish the tight rate $$ \widetildeΘ\left( \frac{\log|G|}{\varepsilon^2} + \frac{(\log|G|)^{1/3}}{\varepsilon^{8/3}} \right) $$ whenever $\log|G|=Ω(\log(1/\varepsilon))$. When $\log|G|\le\varepsilon^{-1+κ}$ for any fixed $κ\in(0,1)$, this rate is polynomially larger than the rate for randomized predictors. Thus, unlike for multicalibration, calibrated multiaccuracy exhibits a genuine sample-complexity separation between deterministic and randomized predictors. The matching upper and lower bounds show that the unusual cube-root dependence on $\log|G|$ is intrinsic. At $\log|G|\asymp\varepsilon^{-1}$, the minimax rates for randomized and deterministic calibrated multiaccuracy both coincide with the minimax rate for multicalibration.

Mon 2 NovMachine LearningData Structures and Algorithms
The gist
This paper studies how many examples are needed to train a predictor that is both accurate on average and well calibrated across different groups defined by tests in a set. The authors find that allowing the predictor to be randomized can reduce the number of samples needed compared to deterministic predictors. They precisely characterize the sample sizes for both types of predictors and show that the difference is intrinsic to the problem. This clarifies how calibration and accuracy requirements affect learning complexity differently for random and fixed prediction methods.
Open → 2611.03305v1