The DOI matches its DataCite record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 7 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks
Open accessAbstract
Confidence calibration -- the problem of predicting probability estimates representative of the true correctness likelihood -- is important for classification models in many applications. We discover that modern neural networks, unlike those from a decade ago, are poorly calibrated. Through extensive experiments, we observe that depth, width, weight decay, and Batch Normalization are important factors influencing calibration. We evaluate the performance of various post-processing calibration methods on state-of-the-art architectures with image and document classification datasets. Our analysis and experiments not only offer insights into neural network learning, but also provide a simple and straightforward recipe for practical settings: on most datasets, temperature scaling -- a single-parameter variant of Platt Scaling -- is surprisingly effective at calibrating predictions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Modern neural networks are often poorly calibrated: their predicted confidence exceeds their accuracy, unlike older networks. Temperature scaling, a single-parameter post-processing method, is surprisingly effective at fixing this across vision and NLP classification tasks.
Key findings
- Miscalibration is common in modern architectures: on CIFAR-100, a 110-layer ResNet has ECE 16.53% uncalibrated, while a 5-layer LeNet has ECE 4.85%; most datasets/models show ECE typically between 4 to 10%, with exceptions SVHN at 0.44% and Reuters at 0.85%.
- Depth, width, Batch Normalization, and weight decay affect calibration: increased model capacity and less weight decay are associated with worse ECE, and a 6-layer ConvNet with Batch Normalization has worse calibration even when accuracy improves slightly.
- Temperature scaling is often the most effective method: on CIFAR-100 ResNet 110 it reduces ECE from 16.53% to 1.26%, and on CIFAR-10 ResNet 110 from 4.6% to 0.83%; it outperforms vector and matrix scaling on vision tasks and performs comparably on NLP datasets.
- NLL can overfit after classification accuracy improves: on CIFAR-100, test error drops from 29% to 27% in the region where NLL overfits, suggesting networks gain accuracy at the expense of well-modeled probabilities.
Methods
- The paper evaluates post-processing calibration methods: histogram binning, isotonic regression, Bayesian Binning into Quantiles (BBQ), and Platt scaling variants including temperature scaling, vector scaling, and matrix scaling.
- Experiments cover 6 image datasets (Caltech-UCSD Birds, Stanford Cars, ImageNet 2012, CIFAR-10/100, SVHN) and 4 document/sentiment datasets (20 News, Reuters, SST binary, SST fine-grained), using ResNets, stochastic-depth ResNets, Wide ResNets, DenseNets, Deep Averaging Networks, and TreeLSTMs.
- Calibration is measured primarily by Expected Calibration Error (ECE) with M = 15 bins, with additional MCE, NLL, and test error tables; temperature scaling uses a single scalar T > 0 applied to logits and optimized by NLL on a validation set, leaving class predictions unchanged.
Limitations
- The paper states it cannot claim causality for the observed relationships between architecture/training trends and miscalibration, and says it remains future work to understand why these trends affect calibration while improving accuracy.
- Temperature scaling does not calibrate the Reuters dataset; the authors note this dataset is already well-calibrated (ECE ≤ 1%) and that measurements may be affected by dataset split or binning scheme.
- Matrix scaling performs poorly on datasets with hundreds of classes and fails to converge on 1000-class ImageNet, which the authors attribute to its number of parameters scaling quadratically with classes and overfitting a small validation set.
- The supplement states MCE is very sensitive to the binning scheme and less suited for small test sets.
- Evident from the text: all calibration methods require a hold-out validation set and assume training, validation, and test sets are drawn from the same distribution; evaluation is limited to the classification datasets and architectures listed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 23 No basis given · 12 Own interpretation · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only dataset that temperature scaling does not calibrate is the Reuters dataset.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two notable exceptions are SVHN and Reuters, both of which experience ECE values below 1% .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“on most datasets, temperature scaling - a singleparameter variant of Platt Scaling - is surprisingly effective at calibrating predictions.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“we find that a single-parameter variant of Platt scaling (Platt et al., 1999) - which we refer to as temperature scaling - is often the most effective method at obtaining calibrated probabilities.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Platt et al., 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The training, validation, and test sets are drawn from the same distribution.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that this result holds regardless of the hyperparameters used on the Batch Normalization model (i.e. low or high learning rate, etc.).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the ECE metric grows substantially with model capacity.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, we observe a disconnect between NLL and accuracy , which may explain the miscalibration in Figure 2.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through extensive experiments, we observe that depth, width, weight decay, and Batch Normalization are important factors influencing calibration.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 3 · hedged
“Though we cannot claim causality, we find that increased model capacity and lack of regularization are closely related to model miscalibration.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 3 · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On CIFAR-100, test error drops from 29% to 27% in the region where NLL overfits.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we do observe that models trained with Batch Normalization tend to be more miscalibrated.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 4 · plain
“a 6-layer ConvNet obtains worse calibration when Batch Normalization is applied, even though classification accuracy improves slightly.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 4 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Surprisingly, overfitting to NLL is beneficial to classification accuracy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Temperature scaling is commonly used in settings such as knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) and statistical mechanics (Jaynes, 1957).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hinton et al., 2015 source
The cited Hinton et al. paper supports the knowledge-distillation portion of the sentence. Section 2 (p. 2) describes using a high temperature to produce soft targets and the same temperature to train the distilled model; the separate statistical-mechanics citation is not being assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jaynes, 1957 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recent advances in deep learning have dramatically improved neural network accuracy (Simonyan & Zisserman, 2015; Srivastava et al., 2015; He et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016; 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Simonyan & Zisserman, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Srivastava et al., 2015 source
The Introduction (p. 1) describes recent breakthroughs from deep neural networks and gives a substantial accuracy gain: top-5 ImageNet classification accuracy rose from about 84% to 95% in a few years with deeper architectures. This supports the citing sentence’s broad claim. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temperature scaling outperforms all other methods on the vision tasks, and performs comparably to other methods on the NLP datasets.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of these datasets have very low error ( 1 . 98% and 2 . 97% , respectively); and therefore the ratio of ECE to error is comparable to other datasets.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, vector scaling recovers essentially the same solution as temperature scaling - the learned vector has nearly constant entries, and therefore is no different than a scalar transformation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is perhaps even more surprising is that temperature scaling outperforms the vector and matrix Platt scaling variants, which are strictly more general methods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth noting that most datasets and models experience some degree of miscalibration, with ECE typically between 4 to 10% .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although increasing depth and width may reduce classification error, we observe that these increases negatively affect model calibration.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 3 · plain
“the ECE metric grows substantially with model capacity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3. Observing Miscalibration · p. 3 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Error with temperature scaling is exactly the same as uncalibrated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence ECE using M bins converges to the M -term Riemann-Stieltjes sum of E ˆ P [∣ ∣ ∣ P ( ˆ Y = Y | ˆ P = p ) -p ∣ ∣ ∣ ] .”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temperature scaling not only lowers the NLL but also raises the entropy of the distribution (green line).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a conjugate gradient solver, the optimal temperature can be found in 10 iterations, or a fraction of a second on most modern hardware.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Histogram binning and isotonic regression take an order of magnitude longer than temperature scaling, and BBQ takes roughly 3 orders of magnitude more time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All methods scale linearly with the number of validation set samples.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Matrix scaling performs poorly on datasets with hundreds of classes (i.e. Birds, Cars, and CIFAR-100), and fails to converge on the 1000-class ImageNet dataset.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MCE seems very sensitive to the binning scheme and is less suited for small test sets.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of the bins are well calibrated, which is remarkable given that all the probabilities were modified by only a single parameter.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, NLL roughly follows the trends of ECE.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, binning methods tend to change class predictions which hurts accuracy (see Section S3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temperature scaling is by far the fastest method, as it amounts to a onedimensional convex optimization problem.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Binning methods improve calibration on most datasets, but do not outperform temperature scaling.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The computational complexity of vector and matrix scaling are linear and quadratic respectively in the number of classes, reflecting the number of parameters in each method.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observed disconnect between NLL and 0/1 loss suggests that these high capacity models are not necessarily immune from overfitting, but rather, overfitting manifests in probabilistic error rather than classification error.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased model capacity will lower training NLL, and thus the model will be more (over)confident on average.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that reliability diagrams do not display the proportion of samples in a given bin, and thus cannot be used to estimate how many samples are calibrated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all practical settings, achieving perfect calibration is impossible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is a standard result (Friedman et al., 2001) that, in expectation, NLL is minimized if and only if ˆ π ( Y | X ) recovers the ground truth conditional distribution π ( Y | X ) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Friedman et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Basic probability tells us that acc( B m ) is an unbiased and consistent estimator of P ( ˆ Y = Y | ˆ P ∈ I m ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our framework, which does not augment the neural network model, returns a confidence score rather than returning a distribution of possible outputs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model is equivalent to maximizing the entropy of the output probability distribution subject to certain constraints on the logits (see Section S2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For perfectly calibrated classifiers, MCE and ECE both equal 0.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in a low-entropy softmax distribution over classes (blue line), which explains the model's overconfidence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because this dataset is well-calibrated to begin with (ECE ≤ 1% ), there is not much room for improvement with any method”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The training, validation, and test sets are drawn from the same distribution.
“We assume that the training, validation, and test sets are drawn from the same distribution.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no prior use of temperature scaling in the context of calibrating probabilistic models.
“To the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of any prior use in the context of calibrating probabilistic models.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Confidence calibration was proposed by Guo et al. (2017), although not under that name.”
From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Guo et al. (2017)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Empirically, LLMs exhibited Expected Calibration Errors (ECE) ranging from 0.108 to 0.427, frequently expressing high confidence in incorrect answers [61].”
From Enhancing Medical Question Answering with LLMs via a Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [61]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Temperature scaling divides the logits vector by a learned scaling parameter, which is a simple yet effective approach to eliminate the over-confident problem of the output posteriors of neural networks [25].”
From When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration [3], [4].”
From Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which was shown by Guo et al. (2017) to lead to well-calibrated predictions on the i.i.d. test set.”
From Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift (2019) · cites this paper as Guo et al. (2017)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition, the method constructs its intervals from nonconformity scores based on the softmax scores [39], [40], which are known to suffer from calibration issues [41], [42].”
From ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Deep neural networks are generally poorly calibrated and produce overconfident results.22”
From Appropriate trust in artificial intelligence for the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps: the role of human/artificial intelligence interaction (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“For example, causal models have been used to estimate the impact of handover-parameter adjustments and other cellular-network configuration interventions, including transmission-power and cell-offset changes, on subsequent service and performance time series [121], [122], [123].”
From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [122]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Language models can produce well-calibrated predictions for token probabilities on-distribution [Guo et al., 2017].”
From Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know (2022) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5. Results · p. 7
“Temperature scaling outperforms all other methods on the vision tasks, and performs comparably to other methods on the NLP datasets.”
§ 4.2. Extension to Multiclass Models · p. 6
“| Cars | ResNet 50 | 4.3% | 1.74% | 4.29% | 1.84% | 2.35% | 2.37% | 10.5% | | CIFAR-10 | ResNet 110 | 4.6% | 0.58% | 0.81% | 0.54% | 0.83% | 0.88% | 1.0% |”
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474 · cited 11×
“We train state-of-the-art convolutional networks: ResNets (He et al., 2016), ResNets with stochastic depth (SD) (Huang et al., 2016), Wide ResNets (Zagoruyko & Komodakis, 2016), and DenseNets (Huang et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialVery Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition
Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.1556 · Cited by 114,148
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333 · cited 1×
“ImageNet 2012 (Deng et al., 2009): Natural scene images from 1000 classes.”
BackgroundGradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.726791 · Cited by 58,805 · cited 2×
“This is visualized in Figure 1, which compares a 5-layer LeNet (left) (LeCun et al., 1998) with a 110-layer ResNet (right) (He et al.”
MethodDensely Connected Convolutional Networks
Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.243 · Cited by 48,566 · cited 4×
“We train state-of-the-art convolutional networks: ResNets (He et al., 2016), ResNets with stochastic depth (SD) (Huang et al., 2016), Wide ResNets (Zagoruyko & Komodakis, 2016), and DenseNets (Huang et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationGirshick, R. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.169 · Cited by 28,105
Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift
Ioffe, S., & Szegedy, C. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.03167 · Cited by 27,818
Wu, Y., & Vapnik, V. N. (1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271368 · Cited by 27,236
Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images
Krizhevsky, A. (2024) · doi:10.57702/zp44cu3g · Cited by 23,889
Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate ShiftPreprint
Ioffe, S. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.57702/o9raffed · Cited by 15,273
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Collobert, Ronan, Kavukcuoglu, Koray, and Farabet, Cl´ ement. Torch7: A matlab-like environment for machine learning. In BigLearn Workshop, NIPS , 2011.
- Friedman, Jerome, Hastie, Trevor, and Tibshirani, Robert. The elements of statistical learning , volume 1. Springer series in statistics Springer, Berlin, 2001.
- Netzer, Yuval, Wang, Tao, Coates, Adam, Bissacco, Alessandro, Wu, Bo, and Ng, Andrew Y. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning Workshop, NIPS , 2011.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 3,447
When and How Mixup Improves CalibrationPreprint
Zhang, L., Deng, Z., Kawaguchi, K., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.06289 · Cited by 23
Detecting Errors and Estimating Accuracy on Unlabeled Data with Self-training EnsemblesPreprint
Chen, J., Liu, F., Avci, B., Wu, X., Liang, Y., & Jha, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.15728 · Cited by 28
Why Do Better Loss Functions Lead to Less Transferable Features?Preprint
Kornblith, S., Chen, T., Lee, H., & Norouzi, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.16402 · Cited by 35
Venkataramanan, A., Benbihi, A., Laviale, M., & Pradalier, C. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00483 · Cited by 22
Toward global rooftop PV detection with Deep Active Learning
Zech, M., Tetens, H.-P., & Ranalli, J. A. (2024) · Advances in Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.adapen.2024.100191 · Cited by 24
Simple and Effective Stochastic Neural Networks
Yu, T., Yang, Y., Li, D., Hospedales, T. M., & Xiang, T. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i4.16436 · Cited by 24
Data-Efficient Semi-Supervised Learning by Reliable Edge Mining
Chen, P., Ma, T., Qin, X., Xu, W., & Zhou, S. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00921 · Cited by 23
What’s in a Name? Are BERT Named Entity Representations just as Good for any other Name?
Balasubramanian, S., Jain, N., Jindal, G., Awasthi, A., & Sarawagi, S. (2020) · Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.repl4nlp-1.24 · Cited by 27
Learning Deep Classifiers Consistent with Fine-Grained Novelty Detection
Cheng, J., & Vasconcelos, N. M. (2021) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00171 · Cited by 23
Programming and training rate-independent chemical reaction networks
Vasić, M., Chalk, C., Luchsinger, A., Sarfraz Khurshid, D., & Soloveichik, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2111552119 · Cited by 29
Bayesian Deep Learning with Monte Carlo Dropout for Qualification of Semantic Segmentation
Dechesne, C., Lassalle, P., & Lefèvre, S. (2021) · IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) · doi:10.1109/igarss47720.2021.9555043 · Cited by 22
Picket: guarding against corrupted data in tabular data during learning and inference
Liu, Z., Zhou, Z., & Rekatsinas, T. (2021) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-021-00699-w · Cited by 33
Deep Neural Forest for Out-of-Distribution Detection of Skin Lesion Images
Li, X., Desrosiers, C., & Liu, X. (2022) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2022.3171582 · Cited by 23
Uncertainty Estimation of Transformer Predictions for Misclassification Detection
Vazhentsev, A., Kuzmin, G., Shelmanov, A., Tsvigun, A., Tsymbalov, E., Fedyanin, K., Panov, M., Panchenko, A., Gusev, G., Burtsev, M., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.566 · Cited by 22
Connecting Low-Loss Subspace for Personalized Federated Learning
Hahn, S.-J., Jeong, M., & Lee, J. (2022) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3534678.3539254 · Cited by 23
ResNet-based bio-acoustics presence detection technology of Hainan gibbon calls
Ruan, W., Wu, K., Chen, Q., & Zhang, C. (2022) · Applied Acoustics · doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2022.108939 · Cited by 21
Calibrated Focal Loss for Semantic Labeling of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images
Bai, H., Cheng, J., Su, Y., Liu, S., & Liu, X. (2022) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2022.3197937 · Cited by 22
Utkin, L. V., & Konstantinov, A. V. (2022) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a15110431 · Cited by 26
Adaptive Fine-Grained Predicates Learning for Scene Graph Generation
Lyu, X., Gao, L., Zeng, P., Shen, H. T., & Song, J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3298356 · Cited by 23
Calibration in machine learning uncertainty quantification: Beyond consistency to target adaptivity
Pernot, P. (2023) · APL Machine Learning · doi:10.1063/5.0174943 · Cited by 22
Reliability-Adaptive Consistency Regularization for Weakly-Supervised Point Cloud Segmentation
Wu, Z., Wu, Y., Lin, G., & Cai, J. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-023-01975-8 · Cited by 24
A closer look at quality-aware runtime assessment of sensing models in multi-device environments
Min, C., Montanari, A., Mathur, A., & Kawsar, F. (2019) · ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys) · doi:10.1145/3356250.3360043 · Cited by 21
Pereira, T., Cardoso, S., Guerreiro, M., de Mendonça, A., & Madeira, S. C. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103350 · Cited by 23
Long-Tailed Recognition Using Class-Balanced Experts
Sharma, S., Yu, N., Fritz, M., & Schiele, B. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71278-5_7 · Cited by 23
Rate Distortion For Model Compression: From Theory To PracticePreprint
Gao, W., Liu, Y.-H., Wang, C., & Oh, S. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.06401 · Cited by 20
Quizbowl: The Case for Incremental Question AnsweringPreprint
Rodríguez, P., Feng, S., Iyyer, M., He, H., & Boyd-Graber, J. L. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.04792 · Cited by 47
PAC Confidence Sets for Deep Neural Networks via Calibrated PredictionPreprint
Park, S., Bastani, O., Matni, N., & Lee, I. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.00106 · Cited by 25
Overinterpretation reveals image classification model pathologiesPreprint
Carter, B., Jain, S., Mueller, J. W., & Gifford, D. K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.08907 · Cited by 30
Towards Maximizing the Representation Gap between In-Domain & Out-of-Distribution ExamplesPreprint
Nandy, J., Hsu, W., & Lee, M. L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10474 · Cited by 24
Evaluating Large-Vocabulary Object Detectors: The Devil is in the DetailsPreprint
Dave, A., Dollár, P., Ramanan, D., Kirillov, A., & Girshick, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.01066 · Cited by 28
Bai, Y., Mei, S., Wang, H., & Xiong, C. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07856 · Cited by 22
Bayesian Deep Learning via Subnetwork InferencePreprint
Daxberger, E., Nalisnick, E., Allingham, J. U., Antorán, J., & Hernández-Lobato, J. M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.14689 · Cited by 32
Infinitely Deep Bayesian Neural Networks with Stochastic Differential EquationsPreprint
Xu, W., Chen, R. T. Q., Li, X., & Duvenaud, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.06559 · Cited by 32
Diversity Matters When Learning From EnsemblesPreprint
Nam, G., Yoon, J., Lee, Y., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14149 · Cited by 22
Zhu, M.-Y., Zecchin, M., Park, S., Guo, C., Feng, C., & Simeone, O. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2024.3358615 · Cited by 29
Self-citationLearning with Different Amounts of Annotation: From Zero to Many Labels
Zhang, S., Gong, C., & Choi, E. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.601 · Cited by 30
Assessing Cross-dataset Generalization of Pedestrian Crossing Predictors
Gesnouin, J., Pechberti, S., Stanciulescu, B., et al. (2022) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv51971.2022.9827083 · Cited by 21
Reliable neural networks for regression uncertainty estimation
Tohme, T., Vanslette, K., & Youcef‐Toumi, K. (2022) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108811 · Cited by 25
BETA-CD: A Bayesian Meta-Learned Cognitive Diagnosis Framework for Personalized Learning
Bi, H., Chen, E., He, W., Wu, H., Zhao, W., Wang, S., & Wu, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25629 · Cited by 21
Multi-Robot Mission Planning in Dynamic Semantic Environments
Kalluraya, S., Pappas, G. J., & Kantaros, Y. (2023) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160344 · Cited by 21
Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Continual Semantic Segmentation for Robotic Surgery
Xu, M., Islam, M., Bai, L., & Ren, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2024.3364969 · Cited by 22
Deep Learning Safety Concerns in Automated Driving Perception
Abrecht, S., Hirsch, A., Raafatnia, S., & Woehrle, M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · doi:10.1109/tiv.2024.3428415 · Cited by 25
Validating Uncertainty in Medical Image Translation
Reinhold, J. C., He, Y., Han, S., Chen, Y., Gao, D., Lee, J., Prince, J. L., & Carass, A. (2020) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi45749.2020.9098543 · Cited by 21
Votenet +: An Improved Deep Learning Label Fusion Method for Multi-Atlas Segmentation
Ding, Z., Han, X., & Niethammer, M. (2020) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi45749.2020.9098493 · Cited by 21
EczemaNet: Automating Detection and Severity Assessment of Atopic Dermatitis
Pan, K., Hurault, G., Arulkumaran, K., Williams, H. C., & Tanaka, R. J. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59861-7_23 · Cited by 23
CUA Loss: Class Uncertainty-Aware Gradient Modulation for Robust Object Detection
Kim, J. U., Kim, S. T., Lee, H. J., Lee, S., & Ro, Y. M. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2020.3042219 · Cited by 21
An Evaluation of Word-Level Confidence Estimation for End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition
Oneaţă, D., Caranica, A., Stan, A., & Cucu, H. (2021) · IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) · doi:10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383570 · Cited by 21
Improving Uncertainty Estimations for Mammogram Classification using Semi-Supervised Learning
Calderon-Ramirez, S., Murillo-Hernandez, D., Rojas-Salazar, K., Calvo-Valverde, L.-A., Yang, S., Moemeni, A., Elizondo, D. A., López‐Rubio, E., & Molina‐Cabello, M. A. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533719 · Cited by 24
An Effective Baseline for Robustness to Distributional Shift
Thulasidasan, S., Thapa, S., Dhaubhadel, S., Chennupati, G., Bhattacharya, T., & Bilmes, J. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla52953.2021.00050 · Cited by 21
Orthogonal Ensemble Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Larrazabal, A. J., Mart'inez, C., Dolz, J., & Ferrante, E. (2021) · International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87199-4_56 · Cited by 26
Le, H. T., Phung, S. L., & Bouzerdoum, A. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2022.3144184 · Cited by 21
Detecting Adversarial Examples and Other Misclassifications in Neural Networks by IntrospectionPreprint
Aigrain, J., & Detyniecki, M. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.09186 · Cited by 21
Hybrid Discriminative-Generative Training via Contrastive LearningPreprint
Liu, H., & Abbeel, P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.09070 · Cited by 45
Objective Evaluation of Deep Uncertainty Predictions for COVID-19 DetectionPreprint
Asgharnezhad, H., Shamsi, A., Alizadehsani, R., Khosravi, A., Nahavandi, S., Sani, Z. A., Sriniva, D., & Islam, S. M. S. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-890026/v1 · Cited by 21
A Bit More Bayesian: Domain-Invariant Learning with UncertaintyPreprint
Xiao, Z., Shen, J., Zhen, X., Shao, L., & Snoek, C. G. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.04030 · Cited by 22
DyTox: Transformers for Continual Learning with DYnamic TOken eXpansionPreprint
Douillard, A., Ramé, A., Couairon, G., & Cord, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.11326 · Cited by 22
Uncertainty-Aware COVID-19 Detection from Imbalanced Sound Data
Xia, T., Han, J., Qendro, L., Dang, T., & Mascolo, C. (2021) · Interspeech 2021 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2021-1320 · Cited by 20
Küstner, T., Hammernik, K., Rueckert, D., Hepp, T., & Gatidis, S. (2024) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.30030 · Cited by 20
Systematic Evaluation of Uncertainty Calibration in Pretrained Object Detectors
Huseljic, D., Herde, M., Hahn, P., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-024-02219-z · Cited by 20
Delta-training: Simple Semi-Supervised Text Classification using Pretrained Word Embeddings
Jo, H., & Cinarel, C. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1347 · Cited by 21
Deep Learning Automatic Fetal Structures Segmentation in MRI Scans with Few Annotated Datasets
Dudovitch, G., Link‐Sourani, D., Ben‐Sira, L., Miller, E., Bashat, D. B., & Joskowicz, L. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59725-2_35 · Cited by 20
Healing Products of Gaussian Process Experts
Cohen, S. N., Mbuvha, R., Marwala, T., et al. (2020) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 20
A statistical perspective on distillation
Menon, A. K., Rawat, A. S., Reddi, S. J., Kim, S., & Kumar, S. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 20
Comparing minds and machines: implications for financial stability
Buckmann, M., Haldane, A., & Hüser, A. (2021) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab017 · Cited by 24
Out-of-Distribution Detection for Medical Applications: Guidelines for Practical Evaluation
Zadorozhny, K., Thoral, P. J., Elbers, P., & Cinà, G. (2022) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14771-5_10 · Cited by 22
Anomaly Detection for In situ Marine Plankton Images
Pu, Y., Feng, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., & Li, J. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw54120.2021.00409 · Cited by 21
Obtaining Calibrated Probabilities with Personalized Ranking Models
Kweon, W., Kang, S., & Yu, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i4.20326 · Cited by 20
Automated Annotator Variability Inspection for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Schilling, M. P., Scherr, T., Münke, F. R., Neumann, O., Schutera, M., Mikut, R., & Reischl, M. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3140378 · Cited by 21
Perceptual Consistency in Video Segmentation
Zhang, Y., Borse, S., Cai, H., Wang, Y., Bi, N., Jiang, X., & Porikli, F. (2022) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv51458.2022.00268 · Cited by 21
Semo, G., Bernsohn, D., Hagag, B., Hayat, G., & Niklaus, J. (2022) · Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop (NLLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.nllp-1.3 · Cited by 30
E-NER: Evidential Deep Learning for Trustworthy Named Entity Recognition
Zhang, Z., Hu, M., Zhao, S., Huang, M., Wang, H., Liu, L., Zhang, Z., Liu, Z., & Wu, B. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.103 · Cited by 23
No One Left Behind: Improving the Worst Categories in Long-Tailed Learning
Du, Y., & Wu, J. (2023) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01517 · Cited by 20
Digital forensics and strong AI: A structured literature review
Fähndrich, J., Honekamp, W., Povalej, R., Rittelmeier, H., Berner, S., & Labudde, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International Digital Investigation · doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301617 · Cited by 27
Input-Aware Dynamic Timestep Spiking Neural Networks for Efficient In-Memory Computing
Li, Y., Moitra, A., Geller, T., & Panda, P. (2023) · ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) · doi:10.1109/dac56929.2023.10247869 · Cited by 25
Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning-Based Remote Photoplethysmography
Song, R., Wang, H., Xia, H., Cheng, J., Li, C., & Chen, X. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2023.3317379 · Cited by 19
TiDAL: Learning Training Dynamics for Active Learning
Kye, S. M., Choi, K., Byun, H., & Chang, B. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.02041 · Cited by 23
MIND: Multi-Task Incremental Network Distillation
Bonato, J., Pelosin, F., Sabetta, L., & Nicolosi, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i10.28987 · Cited by 22
Dynamic Correlation Learning and Regularization for Multi-Label Confidence Calibration
Chen, T., Wang, W., Pu, T., Qin, J., Yang, Z., Liu, J., & Lin, L. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2024.3448248 · Cited by 20
Active Generalized Category Discovery
Ma, S., Zhu, F., Zhong, Z., Zhang, X.-Y., & Liu, C. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01598 · Cited by 26
Efficient Conditional Pre-training for Transfer Learning
Chakraborty, S., Uzkent, B., Ayush, K., Tanmay, K., Sheehan, E., & Ermon, S. (2022) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw56347.2022.00469 · Cited by 24
The Curious Case of Convex Neural Networks
Sivaprasad, S., Singh, A., Manwani, N., & Gandhi, V. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86486-6_45 · Cited by 23
Is Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning Sufficient for Out-of-Distribution Detection?
Schwaiger, A., Sinhamahapatra, P., Gansloser, J., & Roscher, K. (2022) · Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) · doi:10.24406/publica-fhg-408442 · Cited by 20
Neural predictive monitoring and a comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches
Bortolussi, L., Cairoli, F., Paoletti, N., Smolka, S. A., & Stoller, S. D. (2021) · International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10009-021-00623-1 · Cited by 20
Wireless Federated Langevin Monte Carlo: Repurposing Channel Noise for Bayesian Sampling and Privacy
Liu, D.-Z., & Simeone, O. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2022.3215663 · Cited by 25
Behaviour Policy Estimation in Off-Policy Policy Evaluation: Calibration MattersPreprint
Raghu, A., Gottesman, O., Liu, Y., et al. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.01066 · Cited by 20
Inhibited Softmax for Uncertainty Estimation in Neural NetworksPreprint
Możejko, M., Susik, M., & Karczewski, R. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.01861 · Cited by 31
Calibrated Prediction with Covariate Shift via Unsupervised Domain AdaptationPreprint
Park, S., Bastani, O., Weimer, J., & Lee, I. (2020) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.00343 · Cited by 73
Augmenting GAIL with BC for sample efficient imitation learningPreprint
Jena, R., Liu, C., & Sycara, K. P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.07798 · Cited by 21
Gradual Domain Adaptation without Indexed Intermediate DomainsPreprint
Chen, H.-Y., & Chao, W. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04587 · Cited by 20
Automatically detecting data drift in machine learning classifiersPreprint
Ackerman, S., Raz, O., Zalmanovici, M., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.05672 · Cited by 20
Abedi, M., Alshybani, I., Shahadat, M., & Murillo, M. S. (2023) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/md04b0.2 · Cited by 21
Dirichlet-Based Prediction Calibration for Learning with Noisy Labels
Zong, C.-C., Wang, Y.-W., Xie, M.-K., & Huang, S.-J. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i15.29672 · Cited by 23
The Road to Safety: A Review of Uncertainty and Applications to Autonomous Driving Perception
Araújo, B., Teixeira, J. F., Fonseca, J., Cerqueira, R., & Beco, S. C. (2024) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e26080634 · Cited by 28
Kanwal, N., Khoraminia, F., Kiraz, U., Mosquera‐Zamudio, A., Monteagudo, C. C., Janssen, E. A. M., Zuiverloon, T. C. M., Rong, C., & Engan, K. (2024) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02676-z · Cited by 25
L2CEval : Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models
Ni, A., Yin, P., Zhao, Y., Riddell, M., Feng, T., Shen, R., Yin, S., Ye, L., Yavuz, S., Xiong, C., et al. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00705 · Cited by 49
Abécassis, J., Dumas, É., Alberge, J., & Varoquaux, G. P. (2025) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-103123-095750 · Cited by 26
Häfner, S., Fang, H., Azizpour, H., & Yifang Ban, A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3578866 · Cited by 28
LoRA dropout as a sparsity regularizer for overfitting reduction
Lin, Y., Ma, X., Chu, X., Jin, Y., Yang, Z., & Wang, Y. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.114241 · Cited by 76
Assessing Neural Network Scene Classification from Degraded Images
Tadros, T., Cullen, N. C., Greene, M. R., & Cooper, E. A. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Applied Perception · doi:10.1145/3342349 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pleiss, Geoff
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- Pages
- 1321-1330
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1706.04599
- OpenAlex
- W2626967530
- Cited by
- 3,435
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 315 · 2024: 521 · 2023: 590 · 2022: 450 · 2021: 737 · 2020: 475 · 2019: 217 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- International Conference on Machine Learning
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1618134, 1149882, 1526012)
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- confidence calibration, artificial neural networks, temperature scaling, Platt scaling, probability estimates, network depth, weight decay, batch normalization, image classification, document classification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-21, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-21 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
