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 1,301–1,400 of 3,447
Robust brain MRI image classification with SIBOW-SVM
Zeng, L., & Zhang, H. H. (2024) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2024.102451 · Cited by 14
Venkataramanan, A., Kloster, M., Burfeid-Castellanos, A. M., Dani, M., Mayombo, N. A. S., Vidaković, D. P., Langenkämper, D., Tan, M., Pradalier, C., Nattkemper, T. W., et al. (2024) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giae087 · Cited by 13
Bauer, J. C., Trattnig, S., Vieltorf, F., & Daub, R. (2025) · Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · doi:10.1007/s10845-025-02569-6 · Cited by 12
Bao, Q.-Z., Yang, Y., Li, Q., & Yang, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1536226 · Cited by 15
Cell tracking with accurate error prediction
Betjes, M. A., Kok, R. N. U., Tans, S. J., & van Zon, J. S. (2025) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-025-02845-6 · Cited by 14
Collaborative Sampling in Generative Adversarial Networks
Liu, Y., Kothari, P., & Alahi, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5933 · Cited by 14
Toward Adversarial Robustness by Diversity in an Ensemble of Specialized Deep Neural Networks
Abbasi, M., Rajabi, A., Gagné, C., et al. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47358-7_1 · Cited by 13
Non-parametric Bayesian Isotonic Calibration: Fighting Over-Confidence in Binary Classification
Allikivi, M.-L., & Kull, M. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-46147-8_7 · Cited by 14
Calibrating User Response Predictions in Online Advertising
Deng, C., Wang, H., Tan, Q., Xu, J., & Gai, K. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67667-4_13 · Cited by 13
Efficacy of Bayesian Neural Networks in Active Learning
Rakesh, V., & Jain, S. (2021) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw53098.2021.00294 · Cited by 14
Customizable Reference Runtime Monitoring of Neural Networks Using Resolution Boxes
Wu, C., Falcone, Y., & Bensalem, S. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44267-4_2 · Cited by 15
Bayesian Confidence Calibration for Epistemic Uncertainty Modelling
Küppers, F., Kronenberger, J., Schneider, J., & Haselhoff, A. (2021) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv48863.2021.9575841 · Cited by 12
When in Doubt: Improving Classification Performance with Alternating Normalization
Jia, M., Reiter, A., Lim, S.-N., Artzi, Y., & Cardie, C. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.148 · Cited by 16
Prabhudesai, S., Wang, N. C., Ahluwalia, V., Huan, X., Bapuraj, J. R., Banovic, N., & Rao, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.740353 · Cited by 13
Staartjes, V. E., & Kernbach, J. M. (2021) · Acta neurochirurgica. Supplementum · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85292-4_4 · Cited by 13
Colorectal polyp classification using confidence-calibrated convolutional neural networks
Kusters, K. C., Scheeve, T., Dehghani, N., van der Zander, Q. E. W., Schreuder, R.-M., Masclee, A., Schoon, E. J., van der Sommen, F., & de With, P. H. N. (2022) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis · doi:10.1117/12.2606801 · Cited by 13
Accelerating Bayesian Neural Networks via Algorithmic and Hardware Optimizations
Fan, H., Ferianc, M., Que, Z., Niu, X., Rodrigues, M. R. D., & Luk, W. W. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2022.3153682 · Cited by 13
A Virtual Knowledge Distillation via Conditional GAN
Kim, S. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3163398 · Cited by 13
Answer-level Calibration for Free-form Multiple Choice Question Answering
Kumar, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.49 · Cited by 16
Logic Traps in Evaluating Attribution Scores
Ju, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., Jiang, Z., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.407 · Cited by 23
Xing, M., Zhang, Y., Yu, H., Yang, Z., Li, X., Li, Q., Zhao, Y., Zhao, Z., & Luo, Y. (2022) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.107103 · Cited by 13
Latent Discriminant Deterministic Uncertainty
Franchi, G., Yu, X., Bursuc, A., Aldea, E., Dubuisson, S., & Filliat, D. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19775-8_15 · Cited by 13
Wang, M., Jiang, H., Shi, T., Wang, Z., Guo, J. S., Lu, G., Wang, Y., & Yao, Y. (2022) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106215 · Cited by 13
Multitask Learning for Activity Detection in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Ayhan, M. S., Faber, H., Kuehlewein, L., INHOFFEN, W., Aliyeva, G., Ziemssen, F., & Berens, P. (2023) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.12.4.12 · Cited by 13
Peterson, V., Kokkinos, V., Ferrante, E., Walton, A. E., Merk, T., Hadanny, A., Saravanan, V., Sisterson, N. D., Zaher, N., Urban, A., et al. (2023) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/epi.17666 · Cited by 13
Can Large Language Models Capture Dissenting Human Voices?
Lee, N., An, N., & Thorne, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.278 · Cited by 23
Jeon, J., Jung, J. W., Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2018) · Computer Graphics Forum · doi:10.1111/cgf.13544 · Cited by 14
Yang, N., Tang, H., Yue, J., Yang, X., & Xu, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3013621 · Cited by 13
Rankmax: An Adaptive Projection Alternative to the Softmax Function
Kong, W., Krichene, W., Mayoraz, N., et al. (2020) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 13
Limitations of Post-Hoc Feature Alignment for Robustness
Burns, C., & Steinhardt, J. (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/cvpr46437.2021.00255 · Cited by 13
Adversarial Generative Distance-Based Classifier for Robust Out-of-Domain Detection
Zeng, Z., Xu, H., He, K., Yan, Y., Liu, S., Liu, Z., & Xu, W. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9413908 · Cited by 13
Learning to Predict Error for MRI Reconstruction
Shi, H., Pezzotti, N., & Welling, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87199-4_57 · Cited by 13
On the Effects of Transformer Size on In- and Out-of-Domain Calibration
Dan, S., & Roth, D. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.180 · Cited by 14
Towards calibrated and scalable uncertainty representations for neural networksPreprint
Seedat, N., & Kanan, C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.00104 · Cited by 21
Strategy to Increase the Safety of a DNN-based Perception for HAD SystemsPreprint
Sämann, T., Schlicht, P., & Hüger, F. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.08935 · Cited by 20
Semi-Local 3D Lane Detection and Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Efrat, N., Bluvstein, M., Garnett, N., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.05257 · Cited by 13
Diverse Ensembles Improve CalibrationPreprint
Stickland, A. C., & Murray, I. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.04206 · Cited by 13
Distributional Generalization: A New Kind of GeneralizationPreprint
Nakkiran, P., & Bansal, Y. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08092 · Cited by 43
Temperature check: theory and practice for training models with softmax-cross-entropy lossesPreprint
Agarwala, A., Pennington, J., Dauphin, Y., & Schoenholz, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.07344 · Cited by 36
The Hidden Uncertainty in a Neural Networks ActivationsPreprint
Postels, J., Blum, H., Strümpler, Y., Cadena, C., Siegwart, R., Gool, L. V., & Tombari, F. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.03082 · Cited by 46
ExplainaBoard: An Explainable Leaderboard for NLPPreprint
Liu, P., Fu, J., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Chang, S., Dai, J., Liu, Y., Ye, Z., Dou, Z.-Y., & Neubig, G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.06387 · Cited by 25
A Near-Optimal Algorithm for Debiasing Trained Machine Learning ModelsPreprint
Alabdulmohsin, I., & Lučić, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.12887 · Cited by 17
Delaney, E. D., Greene, D., & Keane, M. T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.09734 · Cited by 13
Avilés-Rivero, A. I., Papadakis, N., Li, R., Sellars, P., Alsaleh, S. M., Tan, R. T., & Schönlieb, C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.08635 · Cited by 13
Chen, C., Peng, M., Motagh, M., et al. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2024.3522995 · Cited by 12
Xiao, Y., Shao, H., Wang, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Industrial Information Integration · doi:10.1016/j.jii.2025.100921 · Cited by 12
Kull, M., Perello-Nieto, M., Kängsepp, M., Filho, T. S., Song, H., & Flach, P. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.12656 · Cited by 206
Jang, J.-Y., & Yoon, S. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · doi:10.1109/tie.2020.3003622 · Cited by 12
To Err is (only) Human. Reflections on How to Move from Accuracy to Trust for Medical AI
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., & Datteri, E. (2021) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87842-9_4 · Cited by 12
Selective Prediction-Set Models with Coverage Rate Guarantees
Feng, J., Sondhi, A., Perry, J., & Simon, N. (2021) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/biom.13612 · Cited by 31
LOPS: Learning Order Inspired Pseudo-Label Selection for Weakly Supervised Text Classification
Mekala, D., Dong, C., & Shang, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.360 · Cited by 12
WR-One2Set: Towards Well-Calibrated Keyphrase Generation
Xie, B., Wei, X., Yang, B., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.491 · Cited by 12
Dawood, T., Chan, E., Razavi, R., King, A. P., & Anton, E. P. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi53787.2023.10230515 · Cited by 15
Deployment of Image Analysis Algorithms Under Prevalence Shifts
Godau, P., Kalinowski, P., Christodoulou, E., Reinke, A., Tizabi, M. D., Ferrer, L., Jäger, P. F., & Maier-Hein, L. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43898-1_38 · Cited by 15
Deep skin diseases diagnostic system with Dual-channel Image and Extracted Text
Li, H., Li, H., Zhang, P., Zhang, D., Wei, Z., Qian, T., Tang, Y., Hu, K., Huang, X., Xia, X., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1213620 · Cited by 13
Are Existing Out-Of-Distribution Techniques Suitable for Network Intrusion Detection?
Corsini, A., & Yang, S. J. (2023) · IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security · doi:10.1109/cns59707.2023.10288685 · Cited by 12
Buddenkotte, T., Apostolova, I. I., Opfer, R., Krüger, J., Klutmann, S., & Buchert, R. (2023) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-023-06566-w · Cited by 13
ReliCD: A Reliable Cognitive Diagnosis Framework with Confidence Awareness
Zhang, Y., Qin, C., Shen, D., et al. (2023) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm58522.2023.00095 · Cited by 12
Zecchin, M., Park, S., & Simeone, O. (2024) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory · doi:10.1109/jsait.2024.3368229 · Cited by 21
In Silico Prediction of Oral Acute Rodent Toxicity Using Consensus Machine Learning
Schieferdecker, S., Rottach, F., & Vock, E. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00056 · Cited by 13
Distilling Reliable Knowledge for Instance-Dependent Partial Label Learning
Wu, D., Wang, D.-B., & Zhang, M.-L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i14.29519 · Cited by 12
Beyond Classification: Definition and Density-based Estimation of Calibration in Object Detection
Popordanoska, T., Tiulpin, A., & Blaschko, M. B. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00064 · Cited by 12
A systematic analysis of regression models for protein engineering
Richard, M., Kæstel‐Hansen, J., Groth, P. M., Bartels, S., Salomon, J., Tian, P., Hatzakis, N. S., & Boomsma, W. (2024) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012061 · Cited by 21
Vijayan, M., Prasad, D. K., & Srinivasan, V. (2024) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2024.100555 · Cited by 12
Walchessen, J., Lenzi, A., & Kuusela, M. (2024) · Spatial Statistics · doi:10.1016/j.spasta.2024.100848 · Cited by 18
Risk-aware classification via uncertainty quantification
Şensoy, M., Kaplan, L., Julier, S., Saleki, M., & Cerutti, F. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125906 · Cited by 16
Shedding light on uncertainties in machine learning: formal derivation and optimal model selection
Corso, G. D., Colantonio, S., & Caudai, C. (2025) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2025.107548 · Cited by 13
Navigating prevalence shifts in image analysis algorithm deployment
Godau, P., Kalinowski, P., Christodoulou, E., Reinke, A., Tizabi, M. D., Ferrer, L., Jäger, P. F., & Maier-Hein, L. (2025) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103504 · Cited by 13
Ji, C., & Tang, H. (2025) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2025.105070 · Cited by 15
Calibration and uncertainty quantification for deep learning-based drought detection
Zhang, M., Fernández‐Torres, M., Cohrs, K.-H., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2025.104563 · Cited by 12
Toward a Holistic Evaluation of Robustness in CLIP Models
Tu, W., Deng, W., & Gedeon, T. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3580234 · Cited by 18
Artificial intelligence and investment management: Structure, strategy, and governance
Mertzanis, C. (2025) · International Review of Financial Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104599 · Cited by 13
Sparse Gaussian Processes on Discrete Domains
Fortuin, V., Dresdner, G., Strathmann, H., & Rätsch, G. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3082761 · Cited by 13
ElQadi, M. M., Lesiv, M., Dyer, A. G., et al. (2020) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104696 · Cited by 12
Zhang, F., Dvornek, N. C., Yang, J., Chapiro, J., & Duncan, J. S. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2020.2990625 · Cited by 12
Wang, Y., & Yao, S. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21113708 · Cited by 12
Learning Uncertainty for Safety-Oriented Semantic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving
Besnier, V., Picard, D., & Briot, A. (2021) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip42928.2021.9506719 · Cited by 12
Learning from Noisy Labels with No Change to the Training Process
Zhang, M., Lee, J. J., & Agarwal, S. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 12
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Prior-Shift Adaptation
Sipka, T., Šulc, M., & Matas, J. (2022) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv51458.2022.00209 · Cited by 15
Open-Set Recognition With Gradient-Based Representations
Lee, J.-S., & AlRegib, G. (2021) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip42928.2021.9506430 · Cited by 12
Channel-Driven Monte Carlo Sampling for Bayesian Distributed Learning in Wireless Data Centers
Liu, D.-Z., & Simeone, O. (2021) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2021.3118406 · Cited by 9
Robust Segmentation Models Using an Uncertainty Slice Sampling-Based Annotation Workflow
Chlebus, G., Schenk, A., Hahn, H. K., van Ginneken, B., & Meine, H. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3141021 · Cited by 12
Hopkins, A., & Booth, S. (2021) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 12
Analysis of the first genetic engineering attribution challenge
Crook, O. M., Warmbrod, K. L., Lipstein, G., Chung, C., Bakerlee, C. W., McKelvey, T. G., Holland, S. R., Swett, J. L., Esvelt, K. M., Alley, E. C., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35032-8 · Cited by 12
Kafunah, J., Ali, M. I., & Breslin, J. G. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11219783 · Cited by 13
Active Learning for Human-in-the-Loop Customs Inspection
Kim, S., Mai, T., Han, S., Park, S., Khanh, T. N., So, J., Singh, K., & Cha, M. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3144299 · Cited by 15
Learning Confidence for Transformer-based Neural Machine Translation
Lu, Y., Zeng, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.167 · Cited by 12
Uncertainty-Aware Deep Ensemble Model For Targeted Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy
Fooladgar, F., To, M. N. N., Javadi, G., Samadi, S., Bayat, S., Sojoudi, S., Eshumani, W., Hurtado, A., Chang, S. D., Black, P. C., et al. (2022) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi52829.2022.9761553 · Cited by 12
So Different Yet So Alike! Constrained Unsupervised Text Style Transfer
Kashyap, A. R., Hazarika, D., Kan, M., Zimmermann, R., & Poria, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.32 · Cited by 12
Roitberg, A., Peng, K., Schneider, D., Yang, K., Koulakis, M., Martínez, M., & Stiefelhagen, R. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2022.3196410 · Cited by 14
Diagnostic and prognostic EEG analysis of critically ill patients: A deep learning study
Jonas, S., Müller, M. D., Rossetti, A. O., Rüegg, S. J., Alvarez, V., Schindler, K. A., & Zubler, F. (2022) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103167 · Cited by 15
Improving Training and Inference of Face Recognition Models via Random Temperature Scaling
Shang, L., Huang, M., Shi, W., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Steven, W., Sun, B., Xie, X., & Qiao, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26760 · Cited by 13
Keser, M., Schwalbe, G., Nowzad, A., & Knoll, A. (2023) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw59228.2023.00403 · Cited by 12
Arias-Londoño, J. D., & Godino-Llorente, J. I. (2023) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105831 · Cited by 18
Vera: A General-Purpose Plausibility Estimation Model for Commonsense Statements
Liu, J., Wang, W., Wang, D., Smith, N. A., Choi, Y., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.81 · Cited by 38
Uncertainty Regularized Evidential Regression
Ye, K., Chen, T., Wei, H., & Zhan, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i15.29583 · Cited by 17
Managing Uncertainty of AI-based Perception for Autonomous Systems
Henne, M., Schwaiger, A., & Weiß, G. (2022) · Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) · doi:10.24406/publica-fhg-405082 · Cited by 12
Mergendahl, S., & Li, J. (2020) · IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security · doi:10.1109/cns48642.2020.9162278 · Cited by 12
Learning Better Structured Representations Using Low-rank Adaptive Label Smoothing
Ghoshal, A., Chen, X., Gupta, S., Zettlemoyer, L., & Mehdad, Y. (2021) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 12
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
