Forecast probabilities often serve as critical inputs for binary decision making. In such settings, calibration—ensuring forecasted probabilities match empirical frequencies—is essential. Although the common notion of Expected Calibration Error (ECE) provides actionable insights for decision making, it is not testable: it cannot be empirically estimated in many practical cases. Conversely, the recently proposed Distance from Calibration (dCE) is testable, but it is not actionable since it lacks decision-theoretic guarantees needed for high-stakes applications. To resolve this question, we consider Cutoff Calibration Error, a calibration measure that bridges this gap by assessing calibration over intervals of forecasted probabilities. We show that Cutoff Calibration Error is both testable and actionable, and we examine its implications for popular post-hoc calibration methods, such as isotonic regression and Platt scaling.

Conformalized Quantile Regression (CQR) is a recently proposed method for constructing prediction intervals for a response $Y$ given covariates $X$, without making distributional assumptions. However, existing constructions of CQR can be ineffective for problems where the quantile regressors perform better in certain parts of the feature space than others. The reason is that the prediction intervals of CQR do not distinguish between two forms of uncertainty: first, the variability of the conditional distribution of $Y$ given $X$ (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty), and second, our uncertainty in estimating this conditional distribution (i.e., epistemic uncertainty). This can lead to intervals that are overly narrow in regions where epistemic uncertainty is high. To address this, we propose a new variant of the CQR methodology, Uncertainty-Aware CQR (UACQR), that explicitly separates these two sources of uncertainty to adjust quantile regressors differentially across the feature space. Compared to CQR, our methods enjoy the same distribution-free theoretical coverage guarantees, while demonstrating in our experiments stronger conditional coverage properties in simulated settings and real-world data sets alike.