Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 11, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
When providing forecasted probabilities with a predictive model, the ideal model offers perfect calibration: the true probability of the outcome (i.e., the probability that $Y=1$) exactly matches the forecasted probability $f(X)$. In practice, models inevitably exhibit calibration error, and it is therefore important to be able to measure this miscalibration to assess a model's reliability. The Expected Calibration Error (ECE) is the most widely used measure of miscalibration, but is known to be impossible to estimate the ECE with guaranteed accuracy in an assumption-free setting. In this work, we propose an alternative measure, the rankECE, that is based on comparing points with neighboring values of the predicted probability $f(X)$. Our theoretical guarantees and empirical results establish that rankECE provides a better proxy for ECE as compared to binned approximations to ECE, which are the most commonly-used approximations in practice.