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 1,601–1,700 of 3,447
Perceived Information Revisited
Ito, A., Ueno, R., & Homma, N. (2022) · IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems · doi:10.46586/tches.v2022.i4.228-254 · Cited by 9
Liu, H., Li, X., Bamba, A. L., Song, X., Brott, B. C., Litovsky, S. H., & Gan, Y. (2023) · Journal of Biomedical Optics · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.28.3.036008 · Cited by 10
Barbieri, L., Simeone, O., & Nicoli, M. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10095158 · Cited by 6
Noé, .-G., Miao, X., Wang, X., Yamagishi, J., Bonastre, J.-F., & Matrouf, D. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096749 · Cited by 9
Information gain based dynamic support set construction for cold-start recommendation
Li, Y., & Furukawa, T. (2023) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-023-00795-z · Cited by 9
Hortua, H. J., García, L. Á., & Castañeda, L. (2023) · Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences · doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1139120 · Cited by 9
Hekler, A., Brinker, T. J., & Buettner, F. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26735 · Cited by 9
Variable-Based Calibration for Machine Learning Classifiers
Kelly, M., & Smyth, P. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i7.25991 · Cited by 12
Ma, C., Guo, L., Pan, L., Li, X., Yin, C., Zong, R., & Zhang, Z. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106645 · Cited by 9
Prefix Propagation: Parameter-Efficient Tuning for Long Sequences
Li, J., Aitken, W., Bhambhoria, R. V., & Zhu, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.120 · Cited by 15
Parameter-Efficient Legal Domain Adaptation
Li, J., Bhambhoria, R. V., & Zhu, X. (2022) · Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop (NLLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.nllp-1.10 · Cited by 15
Towards Bridging the Performance Gaps of Joint Energy-Based Models
Yang, X., Su, Q. F., & Ji, S. (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/cvpr52729.2023.01510 · Cited by 11
Towards a Rigorous Calibration Assessment Framework: Advancements in Metrics, Methods, and Use
Famiglini, L., Campagner, A., & Cabitza, F. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230327 · Cited by 11
Harnessing uncertainty in radiotherapy auto-segmentation quality assurance
Wahid, K. A., Sahlsten, J., Jaskari, J., Dohopolski, M. J., Kaski, K. K., He, R., Glerean, E., Kann, B. H., Mäkitie, A. A., Fuller, C. D., et al. (2023) · Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2023.100526 · Cited by 9
Human-AI Collaboration in Decision Making: An Initial Reliability Study and Methodology
Biloborodova, T., & Skarga-Bandurova, I. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS) · doi:10.1109/idaacs58523.2023.10348928 · Cited by 9
Studying the Impact of Augmentations on Medical Confidence Calibration
Rao, A., Lee, J., & Aalami, O. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00260 · Cited by 10
LS-VOS: Identifying Outliers in 3D Object Detections Using Latent Space Virtual Outlier Synthesis
Piroli, A., Dallabetta, V., Kopp, J., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) · doi:10.1109/itsc57777.2023.10421856 · Cited by 9
Marcou, Q., Berti‐Équille, L., & Novelli, N. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104617 · Cited by 11
Layer-wise Auto-Weighting for Non-Stationary Test-Time Adaptation
Park, J., Kim, J., Kwon, H., Yoon, I., & Sohn, K. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00144 · Cited by 11
Quantifying the dynamic predictability of train delay with uncertainty-aware neural networks
Spanninger, T., Wiedemann, N., & Corman, F. (2024) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2024.104563 · Cited by 12
Zhang, S., & Xie, L. (2024) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106457 · Cited by 10
OTAMatch: Optimal Transport Assignment With PseudoNCE for Semi-Supervised Learning
Zhang, J., Liu, J., Li, D., Huang, Q., Chen, J., & Huang, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2024.3425174 · Cited by 9
Robust optimization strategies for contour uncertainties in online adaptive radiation therapy
Smolders, A., Bengtsson, I., Forsgren, A. L., Lomax, A., Weber, D. C., Fredriksson, A., & Albertini, F. (2024) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad6526 · Cited by 9
Superior scoring rules for probabilistic evaluation of single-label multi-class classification tasks
Ahmadian, R., Ghatee, M., & Wahlström, J. (2025) · International Journal of Approximate Reasoning · doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2025.109421 · Cited by 9
Revisiting federated learning with label skew: an over-confidence perspective
Ye, M., Huang, W., Shi, Z., Li, H., & Du, B. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-023-4202-1 · Cited by 12
Ruder, S., Glover, J. D., Mehrabani, A., et al. (2018) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-5007 · Cited by 9
Deep Learning for Automated Tagging of Fashion Images
Gutierrez, P., Sondag, P.-A., Butkovic, P., Lacy, M., Berges, J., Bertrand, F., & Knudson, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11015-4_1 · Cited by 8
Deep and Ensemble Learning to Win the Army RCO AI Signal Classification Challenge
Casado, A. I. V., Branchevsky, D., Logue, K., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the Python in Science Conferences · doi:10.25080/majora-7ddc1dd1-003 · Cited by 9
Hierarchical Classification of Pulmonary Lesions: A Large-Scale Radio-Pathomics Study
Yang, J., Gao, M., Kuang, K., et al. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59725-2_48 · Cited by 9
Detecting Misclassification Errors in Neural Networks with a Gaussian Process Model
Qiu, X., & Miikkulainen, R. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i7.20773 · Cited by 12
Recalibrating classifiers for interpretable abusive content detection
Vidgen, B., Hale, S. A., Staton, S., Melham, T., Margetts, H. Z., Kammar, O., & Szymczak, M. (2020) · Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science (NLP+CSS) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.nlpcss-1.14 · Cited by 9
Adversarial momentum-contrastive pre-training
Xu, C., Li, D., & Yang, M. (2022) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2022.07.005 · Cited by 9
Joint Energy-based Model Training for Better Calibrated Natural Language Understanding Models
He, T., McCann, B., Xiong, C., & Hosseini-Asl, E. (2021) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.151 · Cited by 14
Boursinos, D., & Koutsoukos, X. (2021) · Artificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturing · doi:10.1017/s089006042100010x · Cited by 23
Credal Self-Supervised Learning
Lienen, J., & Hüllermeier, E. (2021) · Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.11853 · Cited by 11
Flexible and Efficient Inference with Particles for the Variational Gaussian Approximation
Galy-Fajou, T., Perrone, V., & Opper, M. (2021) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e23080990 · Cited by 10
Stop Throwing Away Discriminators! Re-using Adversaries for Test-Time Training
Valvano, G., Leo, A., & Tsaftaris, S. A. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87722-4_7 · Cited by 9
DW-UNet: Loss Balance under Local-Patch for 3D Infection Segmentation from COVID-19 CT Images
Chen, C., Zhou, J., Zhou, K., Wang, Z., & Xiao, R. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11111942 · Cited by 9
Semi-Supervised Federated Peer Learning for Skin Lesion Classification
Bdair, T. M., Navab, N., & Albarqouni, S. (2022) · The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2022-8g82 · Cited by 11
Improving Depression Assessment With Multi-Task Learning From Speech and Text Information
Lau, C., Chan, W.-Y., & Zhu, X. (2021) · Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ACSSC) · doi:10.1109/ieeeconf53345.2021.9723273 · Cited by 9
MixPatch: A New Method for Training Histopathology Image Classifiers
Park, Y., Kim, M., Ashraf, M., Ko, Y. S., & Yi, M. Y. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12061493 · Cited by 9
Reliability Scoring for the Recognition of Degraded License Plates
Maier, A., Moussa, D., Spruck, A., Seiler, J., & Rieß, C. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS) · doi:10.1109/avss56176.2022.9959390 · Cited by 9
Sensor-Based Open-Set Human Activity Recognition Using Representation Learning With Mixup Triplets
Lee, M., & Kim, S. B. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3221425 · Cited by 10
Request Dispatching Over Distributed SDN Control Plane: A Multiagent Approach
Huang, V., Chen, G., Zuo, X., Zomaya, A. Y., Sohrabi, N., Tari, Z., & Fu, Q. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2023.3266448 · Cited by 9
Uncertainty-aware LiDAR Panoptic Segmentation
Sirohi, K., Marvi, S., Buscher, D., & Burgard, W. (2023) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160355 · Cited by 9
Multi-view 3D Object Reconstruction and Uncertainty Modelling with Neural Shape Prior
Liao, Z., & Waslander, S. L. (2024) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00307 · Cited by 10
To BAN or Not to BAN: Bayesian Attention Networks for Reliable Hate Speech Detection
Miok, K., Škrlj, B., Zaharie, D., & Robnik‐Šikonja, M. (2021) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-021-09826-9 · Cited by 39
Diversity regularization in deep ensemblesPreprint
Shui, C., Mozafari, A. S., Marek, J., et al. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.07881 · Cited by 9
Disentangle, align and fuse for multimodal and zero-shot image segmentationPreprint
Chartsias, A., Papanastasiou, G., Wang, C., Semple, S. I. K., Newby, D. E., Dharmakumar, R., & Tsaftaris, S. A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 10
VisionGuard: Runtime Detection of Adversarial Inputs to Perception SystemsPreprint
Kantaros, Y., Carpenter, T. J., Park, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 9
Vadera, M. P., Cobb, A. D., Jalaian, B. A., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.04466 · Cited by 9
An Empirical Study on Robustness to Spurious Correlations using Pre-trained Language ModelsPreprint
Tu, L., Lalwani, G., Gella, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.06778 · Cited by 9
PAC Confidence Predictions for Deep Neural Network ClassifiersPreprint
Park, S., Li, S., Lee, I., & Bastani, O. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.00716 · Cited by 9
ReMix: Calibrated Resampling for Class Imbalance in Deep learningPreprint
Bellinger, C., Corizzo, R., & Japkowicz, N. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.02312 · Cited by 17
Assessing The Importance Of Colours For CNNs In Object RecognitionPreprint
Singh, A., Bay, A., & Mirabile, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.06917 · Cited by 14
Should Ensemble Members Be Calibrated?Preprint
Wu, X., & Gales, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.05397 · Cited by 21
Correspondence Learning for Deep Multi-Modal Recognition and Fraud Detection
Park, J., Kim, M.-H., & Choi, D. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10070800 · Cited by 9
DOCTOR: A Simple Method for Detecting Misclassification ErrorsPreprint
Granese, F., Romanelli, M., Gorla, D., Catuscia Palamidessi, A., & Piantanida, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.02395 · Cited by 10
Confidence Aware Neural Networks for Skin Cancer DetectionPreprint
Khaledyan, D., Tajally, A., Sarkhosh, A., Shamsi, A., Asgharnezhad, H., Khosravi, A., & Nahavandi, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.09118 · Cited by 9
FairCal: Fairness Calibration for Face VerificationPreprint
Salvador, T., Cairns, S., Voleti, V., Marshall, N., & Oberman, A. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.03761 · Cited by 19
Dense Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Zhang, J., Dai, Y., Xiang, M., Fan, D.-P., Moghadam, P., He, M., Walder, C., Zhang, K., Harandi, M. T., & Barnes, N. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.06427 · Cited by 14
Robustness via Uncertainty-aware Cycle ConsistencyPreprint
Upadhyay, U., Chen, Y., & Akata, Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.12467 · Cited by 8
Effective Continual Learning for Text Classification with Lightweight Snapshots
Wang, J., Dong, D., Shou, L., Chen, K., & Chen, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i8.26206 · Cited by 8
Calibration-Aware Bayesian Learning
Huang, J., Park, S., & Simeone, O. (2023) · Machine learning for signal processing ... · doi:10.1109/mlsp55844.2023.10285894 · Cited by 9
Zhang, T., Zhou, X., Wang, D. D., et al. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102253 · Cited by 8
Vien, B. S., Kuen, T., Rose, L. R. F., et al. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24082537 · Cited by 8
Laurent-Bellue, A., Sadraoui, A., Claude, L., Caldéraro, J., Posseme, K., Vibert, É., Cherqui, D., Rosmorduc, O., Lewin, M., Pesquet, J.-C., et al. (2024) · American Journal Of Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2024.05.007 · Cited by 8
Misclassification Prediction for Transient Stability Assessment
Bogodorova, T., Osipov, D., & Chow, J. H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2024.3443502 · Cited by 8
Choi, J., Yang, J.-Y., & Chang, J. (2024) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2024.3463491 · Cited by 9
Shirmohammadi, S., Amiri, M. H., & Osman, H. A. (2024) · IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine · doi:10.1109/mim.2024.10700740 · Cited by 8
Yoo, S. K., Kim, K. H., Noh, J. M., Oh, J., Yang, G., Kim, J., Kim, N., Kim, H., & Yoon, H. I. (2024) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110566 · Cited by 8
FedFM: A federated few-shot learning method by comparison network and model calibration
Zhao, C., Bao, S., Chen, M., Gao, Z., Xiao, K., & Dai, P. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112848 · Cited by 8
Decoupled Prototype Learning for Reliable Test-Time Adaptation
Wang, G., Ding, C., Tan, W., & Tan, M. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2025.3535400 · Cited by 13
Cost-sensitive classification with cost uncertainty: do we need surrogate losses?
Komisarenko, V., & Kull, M. (2025) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-024-06634-8 · Cited by 17
Jo, H., Won, M.-S., Kraxner, F., Jeon, S., Son, Y., Krasovskiy, A., & Lee, W. (2025) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3564852 · Cited by 10
Kopton, J., de Bruin, S., Schulz, D., & Luedeling, E. (2025) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110426 · Cited by 10
Enhancing Uncertainty Estimation in Semantic Segmentation via Monte-Carlo Frequency Dropout
Zeevi, T., Staib, L. H., & Onofrey, J. A. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi60581.2025.10980684 · Cited by 10
Ye, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, P., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2025.122065 · Cited by 9
Salazar-Campos, O., Ruiz, J. M., Peralta, J. L., Cieza, M. R., Medina, B. S., & Salazar-Campos, J. (2025) · Results in Control and Optimization · doi:10.1016/j.rico.2025.100589 · Cited by 9
Ranking over regression for Bayesian optimization and molecule selection
Tom, G., Lo, S., Corapi, S., Aspuru‐Guzik, A., & Sánchez-Lengeling, B. (2025) · APL Machine Learning · doi:10.1063/5.0272663 · Cited by 12
Enhanced deep Convolutional Neural Network for SARS-CoV-2 variants classification
Awe, O. I., Obura, H. O., Charles, S., Mudibo, E. O., & Mwanga, M. J. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1512003 · Cited by 28
Nested Learning for Multi-Level Classification
Achddou, R., Martino, J. M. D., & Sapiro, G. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9415076 · Cited by 8
From Explainable to Reliable Artificial Intelligence
Narteni, S., Ferretti, M., Orani, V., Vaccari, I., Cambiaso, E., & Mongelli, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84060-0_17 · Cited by 8
Deep Quantile Regression for Uncertainty Estimation in Unsupervised and Supervised Lesion Detection
Akrami, H., Joshi, A. A., Aydöre, S., & Leahy, R. M. (2022) · The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2022-6751 · Cited by 8
ProbNet: Bayesian deep neural network for point cloud analysis
Wang, X., Zhang, K., Li, H., Luo, H., & Wang, J. (2022) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2022.04.004 · Cited by 8
Betting market efficiency and prediction in binary choice models
Koning, R. H., & Zijm, R. (2022) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04722-3 · Cited by 8
Adaptive Driving Style Classification through Transfer Learning with Synthetic Oversampling
Jardin, P., Moisidis, I., Kartal, K., et al. (2022) · Vehicles · doi:10.3390/vehicles4040069 · Cited by 8
A Dual-Stage Pseudo-Labeling Method for the Diagnosis of Mental Disorder on MRI Scans
Hu, Y. F., Huang, Z.-A., Liu, R., Xue, X., Song, L., & Tan, K. C. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892792 · Cited by 8
Few-shot Reranking for Multi-hop QA via Language Model Prompting
Khalifa, M., Logeswaran, L., Lee, M., Lee, H., & Wang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.885 · Cited by 18
Distilling Calibrated Knowledge for Stance Detection
Li, Y., & Caragea, C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.393 · Cited by 8
Calibrated Interpretation: Confidence Estimation in Semantic Parsing
Stengel-Eskin, E., & Durme, B. V. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00598 · Cited by 18
Zi-an, Z., Feng, X., Xiao-qiang, R., & Yun-yun, D. (2023) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad0eb2 · Cited by 8
Topological persistence guided knowledge distillation for wearable sensor data
Jeon, E. S., Choi, H., Shukla, A., Wang, Y., Lee, H., Buman, M. P., & Turaga, P. K. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107719 · Cited by 10
TextManiA: Enriching Visual Feature by Text-driven Manifold Augmentation
Ye-Bin, M., Kim, J., Kim, H., Son, K., & Oh, T.-H. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00239 · Cited by 11
Uncertainty-Aware Ensemble Learning Models for Out-of-Distribution Medical Imaging Analysis
Tamo, J. B., Nnamdi, M. C., Lesbats, L., Shi, W., Zhong, Y., & Wang, M. D. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10385418 · Cited by 8
On the Calibration of Uncertainty Estimation in LiDAR-Based Semantic Segmentation
Dreißig, M., Piewak, F., & Boedecker, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) · doi:10.1109/itsc57777.2023.10422384 · Cited by 8
2D Human Pose Estimation Calibration and Keypoint Visibility Classification
Jiang, Z., Ji, H., Yang, C.-Y., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10448474 · Cited by 8
Evidential Uncertainty-Guided Mitochondria Segmentation for 3D EM Images
Shi, R., Duan, L., Huang, T., & Jiang, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i5.28287 · Cited by 9
SimCalib: Graph Neural Network Calibration Based on Similarity between Nodes
Tang, B., Wu, Z., Wu, X., Huang, Q., Chen, J., Lei, S., & Meng, H. M. L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i14.29450 · Cited by 8
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
