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 1,701–1,800 of 3,447
Calibrated One Round Federated Learning with Bayesian Inference in the Predictive Space
Hasan, M., Zhang, G., Guo, K., Chen, X., & Poupart, P. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i11.29122 · Cited by 8
Beyond Document Page Classification: Design, Datasets, and Challenges
Landeghem, J. V., Biswas, S., Blaschko, M. B., et al. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00294 · Cited by 8
Saunders-Shultz, P., Lopez, T. M., Dietterich, H. R., & Girona, T. (2024) · Frontiers in Earth Science · doi:10.3389/feart.2024.1345104 · Cited by 9
Knowing When to Stop: Delay-Adaptive Spiking Neural Network Classifiers With Reliability Guarantees
Chen, J., Park, S., & Simeone, O. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2024.3431996 · Cited by 16
Preventing Catastrophic Forgetting in Continuous Online Learning for Autonomous Driving
Yang, R., Yang, T., Yan, Z., et al. (2024) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros58592.2024.10801619 · Cited by 8
Distribution-Aware Multi-Label FixMatch for Semi-Supervised Learning on CheXpert
Ihler, S., Kuhnke, F., Kuhlgatz, T., et al. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00235 · Cited by 8
ReweightOOD: Loss Reweighting for Distance-based OOD Detection
Regmi, S., Panthi, B., Ming, Y., Gyawali, P., Stoyanov, D. V., & Bhattarai, B. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00018 · Cited by 8
Seckler, H., & Metzler, R. (2024) · Journal of Physics Photonics · doi:10.1088/2515-7647/ad884c · Cited by 11
Uncertainty guided semi-supervised few-shot segmentation with prototype level fusion
Wang, H., Wu, C.-W. G., Zhang, H., et al. (2024) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106802 · Cited by 8
Modeling machine learning: A cognitive economic approach
Caplin, A., Martin, D., & Marx, P. (2025) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2025.105970 · Cited by 17
Deep Bayesian segmentation for colon polyps: Well-calibrated predictions in medical imaging
Ramos, D. L., & Hortua, H. J. (2025) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2024.107383 · Cited by 8
Land Cover Classification with Superpixels and Jaccard Index Post-Optimization
Davydow, A., & Nikolenko, S. (2018) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2018.00053 · Cited by 8
Controlling Risk of Web Question Answering
Su, L., Guo, J., Fan, Y., Lan, Y., & Cheng, X. (2019) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3331184.3331261 · Cited by 10
Long Short-Term Sample Distillation
Jiang, L., Wen, Z., Liang, Z., Wang, Y., de Melo, G., Li, Z., Ma, L., Zhang, J., Li, X., & Qi, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5859 · Cited by 8
Gutierrez, K., & Santos, V. J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Haptics · doi:10.1109/toh.2020.2975555 · Cited by 8
A Witness Function Based Construction of Discriminative Models Using Hermite Polynomials
Mhaskar, H. N., Cheng, X., & Cloninger, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics · doi:10.3389/fams.2020.00031 · Cited by 7
Vector Quantized Bayesian Neural Network Inference for Data Streams
Park, N., Lee, T., & Kim, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i10.17124 · Cited by 8
Sangroya, A., Rastogi, M., Anantaram, C., & Vig, L. (2020) · Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · Cited by 8
Exploring Genetic-histologic Relationships in Breast Cancer
Chauhan, R., Vinod, P. K. U., & Jawahar, C. V. (2021) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi48211.2021.9434130 · Cited by 8
Closer Look at the Uncertainty Estimation in Semantic Segmentation under Distributional Shift
Cygert, S., Wroblewski, B., Wozniak, K., Slowinski, R., & Czyżewski, A. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533330 · Cited by 8
Investigation of Uncertainty of Deep Learning-based Object Classification on Radar Spectra
Patel, K., Beluch, W., Rambach, K., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE National Radar Conference · doi:10.1109/radarconf2147009.2021.9455269 · Cited by 8
Neighborhood Intervention Consistency: Measuring Confidence for Knowledge Graph Link Prediction
Wang, K., Liu, Y., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/288 · Cited by 8
Deep Face-Iris Recognition Using Robust Image Segmentation and Hyperparameter Tuning
Brown, D. (2021) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-3728-5_19 · Cited by 8
Concept Drift Detection via Boundary Shrinking
Okawa, Y., & KOBAYASHI, K. P. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533334 · Cited by 8
Improving Confidence Estimation on Out-of-Domain Data for End-to-End Speech Recognition
Li, Q., Zhang, Y., Qiu, D., et al. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746979 · Cited by 8
Instance-based Label Smoothing For Better Calibrated Classification Networks
Maher, M., & Kull, M. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla52953.2021.00124 · Cited by 9
On the Use of Uncertainty in Classifying Aedes Albopictus Mosquitoes
Adhane, G. W., Dehshibi, M. M., & Masip, D. (2021) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2021.3122886 · Cited by 9
Javadi, G., Bayat, S., Esfeh, M. M. K., Samadi, S., Sedghi, A., Sojoudi, S., Hurtado, A., Chang, S. D., Black, P. C., Mousavi, P., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-021-02485-z · Cited by 8
Self-Adaptive Approximate Mobile Deep Learning
Knez, T., Machidon, O. M., & Pejović, V. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10232958 · Cited by 9
Tellamekala, M. K., Giesbrecht, T., & Valstar, M. (2021) · International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition · doi:10.1109/fg52635.2021.9667015 · Cited by 8
Robust Decision-Making in the Internet of Battlefield Things Using Bayesian Neural Networks
Cobb, A. D., Jalaian, B. A., Bastian, N. D., & Russell, S. (2021) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc52266.2021.9715532 · Cited by 8
Superpixel-Oriented Label Distribution Learning for Skin Lesion Segmentation
Zhou, Q., He, T., & Zou, Y. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12040938 · Cited by 8
The Box Size Confidence Bias Harms Your Object Detector
Gilg, J., Teepe, T., Herzog, F., & Rigoll, G. (2023) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv56688.2023.00152 · Cited by 8
Choi, D., Choi, H., & Lee, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.116 · Cited by 8
Leveraging angular distributions for improved knowledge distillation
Jeon, E. S., Choi, H., Shukla, A., & Turaga, P. K. (2022) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2022.11.029 · Cited by 8
Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification on Biosignal Classification Tasks Under Dataset Shift
Xia, T., Han, J., & Mascolo, C. (2022) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14771-5_25 · Cited by 10
Schulz, K. W., Gaither, K., Zigler, C. M., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000166 · Cited by 8
OBBStacking: An Ensemble Method for Remote Sensing Object Detection
Lin, H., Sun, C., & Liu, Y. (2023) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3243168 · Cited by 8
Forecasting Lightpath Quality of Transmission and Implementing Uncertainty in the Forecast Models
Yousefi, S., Chouman, H., Djukic, P., Golaghazadeh, F., Tremblay, C. L., & Desrosiers, C. (2023) · Journal of Lightwave Technology · doi:10.1109/jlt.2023.3252441 · Cited by 10
DeepLens: Interactive Out-of-distribution Data Detection in NLP Models
Song, D., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Ma, L., & Zhang, T. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580741 · Cited by 9
Orozco, R., Siahkoohi, A., Rizzuti, G., et al. (2023) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Image Processing · doi:10.1117/12.2651691 · Cited by 8
Bayesian Inference on Binary Spiking Networks Leveraging Nanoscale Device Stochasticity
Katti, P., Skatchkovsky, N., Simeone, O., Rajendran, B., & Al‐Hashimi, B. M. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems proceedings · doi:10.1109/iscas46773.2023.10181438 · Cited by 8
Uncertainty-Aware Bootstrap Learning for Joint Extraction on Distantly-Supervised Data
Li, Y., Yu, X., Liu, Y., Chen, H., & Liu, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.116 · Cited by 11
Calibrating Imbalanced Classifiers with Focal Loss: An Empirical Study
Wang, C., Balazs, J., Szarvas, G., Ernst, P. J., Poddar, L., & Danchenko, P. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-industry.14 · Cited by 8
Uncertainty-Informed Detection of Epileptogenic Brain Malformations Using Bayesian Neural Networks
Gill, R. S., Caldairou, B., Bernasconi, N., & Bernasconi, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32251-9_25 · Cited by 8
Another step toward demystifying deep neural networks
Elad, M., Simon, D., & Aberdam, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2018957117 · Cited by 8
Kocaman, V., Shir, O. M., & Bäck, T. (2021) · Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition/Proceedings/International Conference on Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/icpr48806.2021.9412907 · Cited by 8
Briakou, E., & Carpuat, M. J. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.562 · Cited by 9
Whittle Networks: A Deep Likelihood Model for Time Series
Yu, Z., Ventola, F., & Kristian Kersting, B. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 8
On the Relationship Between Calibrated Predictors and Unbiased Volume Estimation
Popordanoska, T., Bertels, J., Vandermeulen, D., et al. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87193-2_64 · Cited by 8
Challenges and Opportunities in Approximate Bayesian Deep Learning for Intelligent IoT Systems
Vadera, M. P., & Marlin, B. M. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI) · doi:10.1109/cogmi52975.2021.00040 · Cited by 8
Interpreting Neural Networks Using Flip PointsPreprint
Yousefzadeh, R., & O’Leary, D. P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.08789 · Cited by 12
A Financial Service Chatbot based on Deep Bidirectional TransformersPreprint
Shi, Y., Chen, Y., & Zaidi, H. A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.04987 · Cited by 8
One Versus all for deep Neural Network Incertitude (OVNNI) quantificationPreprint
Franchi, G., Bursuc, A., Aldea, E., Dubuisson, S., & Isabelle Bloch, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.00954 · Cited by 10
Uncertainty Estimation with Infinitesimal Jackknife, Its Distribution and Mean-Field ApproximationPreprint
Lu, Z., Ie, E., & Sha, F. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 9
Resolving Intent Ambiguities by Retrieving Discriminative Clarifying QuestionsPreprint
Dhole, K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.07559 · Cited by 8
Adaptive Label SmoothingPreprint
Krothapalli, U., & Abbott, A. L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.06432 · Cited by 8
Bayesian Optimization Meets Laplace Approximation for Robotic IntrospectionPreprint
Humt, M., Lee, J., & Triebel, R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.16141 · Cited by 13
de Bie, K., Lučić, A., & Haned, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.06982 · Cited by 13
"Why Would I Trust Your Numbers?" On the Explainability of Expected Values in SoccerPreprint
Haaren, J. V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.13778 · Cited by 8
When in Doubt: Neural Non-Parametric Uncertainty Quantification for Epidemic ForecastingPreprint
Kamarthi, H., Kong, L., Rodríguez, A., Zhang, C., & Prakash, B. A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.03904 · Cited by 8
Adversarial Training with Rectified RejectionPreprint
Pang, T., Zhang, H., He, D., Dong, Y., Su, H., Chen, W. R., Zhu, J., & Liu, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 8
Dufumier, B., Gori, P., Battaglia, I., Victor, J., Grigis, A., & Duchesnay, É. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.01132 · Cited by 22
QLSD: Quantised Langevin stochastic dynamics for Bayesian federated learningPreprint
Vono, M., Plassier, V., Durmus, A., Dieuleveut, A., & Moulines, É. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.00797 · Cited by 9
Teacher's pet: understanding and mitigating biases in distillationPreprint
Łukasik, M., Bhojanapalli, S., Menon, A. K., & Kumar, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.10494 · Cited by 25
Learning to Learn to Demodulate with Uncertainty Quantification via Bayesian Meta-Learning.Preprint
Cohen, K. M., Park, S., Simeone, O., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 8
Detecting OODs as datapoints with High UncertaintyPreprint
Kaur, R., Jha, S., Roy, A., Park, S., Sokolsky, O. V., & Lee, I. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.06380 · Cited by 15
$k$Folden: $k$-Fold Ensemble for Out-Of-Distribution DetectionPreprint
Li, X., Li, J., Sun, X., Fan, C. C., Zhang, T., Wu, F., Meng, Y., & Zhang, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.12731 · Cited by 8
Improving MC-Dropout Uncertainty Estimates with Calibration Error-based Optimization.Preprint
Jokandan, A. S., Asgharnezhad, H., Abdar, M., Tajally, A., Khosravi, A., Nahavandi, S., & Leung, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 8
Classification of Goods Using Text Descriptions With Sentences RetrievalPreprint
Lee, E., Kim, S., Kim, S., Park, S., Cha, M., Jung, S., Yang, S., Choi, Y., Ji, S., Song, M., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.01663 · Cited by 20
StochGradAdam: Accelerating Neural Networks Training with Stochastic Gradient SamplingPreprint
Yun, J. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3488436/v1 · Cited by 8
Smorodina, E., Ali, M., Kropivšek, K., Salicari, L., Miklavc, S., Kappassov, A., Fu, C., Sormanni, P., de Marco, A., & Greiff, V. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.03.02.709004 · Cited by 12
Minimum Uncertainty Based Detection of Adversaries in Deep Neural Networks
Sheikholeslami, F., Jain, S., & Giannakis, G. B. (2020) · 2020 Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA) · doi:10.1109/ita50056.2020.9244964 · Cited by 21
Towards Trustworthy Predictions from Deep Neural Networks with Fast Adversarial Calibration
Tomani, C., & Buettner, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i11.17188 · Cited by 10
Improved Trainable Calibration Method for Neural Networks
Liang, G., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., & Jacobs, N. (2020) · British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) · doi:10.5244/c.34.16 · Cited by 11
Estimates of broadband upwelling irradiance from GOES-16 ABI
McCloskey, K., Chen, S., Meijer, V., Ng, J. Y.-H., Davis, G., Elkin, C. D., Arsdale, C. V., & Geraedts, S. (2022) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113376 · Cited by 8
Confidence-Aware Paced-Curriculum Learning by Label Smoothing for Surgical Scene Understanding
Xu, M., Islam, M., Glocker, B., & Ren, H. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/tase.2023.3276361 · Cited by 8
Musician-AI partnership mediated by emotionally-aware smart musical instruments
Turchet, L., Stefani, D., & Pauwels, J. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103340 · Cited by 8
Improved User Identification through Calibrated Monte-Carlo Dropout
Ahmadian, R., Ghatee, M., & Wahlström, J. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112581 · Cited by 7
Uncertainty-Aware Self-Knowledge Distillation
Yang, Y., Wang, C., Gong, L., Wu, M., Chen, Z., Gao, Y., Wang, T., & Zhou, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2024.3516145 · Cited by 8
Unmasking the chameleons: A benchmark for out-of-distribution detection in medical tabular data
Azizmalayeri, M., Abu–Hanna, A., & Cinà, G. (2024) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105762 · Cited by 16
Wang, H., Jin, Q., Du, X., Wang, L., Guo, Q., Li, H., Wang, M., & Song, Z. (2025) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102544 · Cited by 7
Estimating Calibrated Risks Using Focal Loss and Gradient-Boosted Trees for Clinical Risk Prediction
Johnston, H., Nair, N., & Du, D. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14091838 · Cited by 8
Mitigating adversarial attacks on transformer models in credit scoring
Schwab, B., & Kriebel, J. (2025) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2025.05.029 · Cited by 7
A novel uncertainty-aware point cloud approach for geometric quality monitoring in construction
Luo, H., Zhan, J., Liu, J., Zhou, W., & Fang, W. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103642 · Cited by 7
Yu, Y., Zhang, S., Li, H., & Xue, F. (2025) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-07189-1 · Cited by 7
Loss Scheduling for Class-Imbalanced Image Segmentation Problems
Taubert, O., Götz, M., Schug, A. H., & Streit, A. (2020) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla51294.2020.00073 · Cited by 7
Bayesian Variational Federated Learning and Unlearning in Decentralized Networks
Gong, J., Simeone, O., & Kang, J. (2021) · IEEE International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC) · doi:10.1109/spawc51858.2021.9593225 · Cited by 7
Informative and Reliable Tract Segmentation for Preoperative Planning
Lucena, O., Borges, P., Cardoso, M. J., Ashkan, K., Sparks, R. E., & Sebastien Ourselin, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Radiology · doi:10.3389/fradi.2022.866974 · Cited by 8
Goal or Miss? A Bernoulli Distribution for In-Game Outcome Prediction in Soccer
Yao, W., Wang, Y., Zhu, M., Cao, Y., & Zeng, D. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24070971 · Cited by 7
French translation of a dialogue dataset and text-based emotion detection
Genest, P.-Y., Goix, L.-W., Khalafaoui, Y., Egyed‐Zsigmond, E., & Grozavu, N. (2022) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2022.102099 · Cited by 10
Label Diffusion Graph Learning network for semi-supervised breast histological image recognition
Zeng, Y., & Xu, X. (2022) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2022.104306 · Cited by 7
Probing the Purview of Neural Networks via Gradient Analysis
Lee, J., Lehman, C., Prabhushankar, M., & AlRegib, G. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3263210 · Cited by 8
Arias-Londoño, J. D., Moure-Prado, Á., & Godino-Llorente, J. I. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13081381 · Cited by 7
Trustworthy Sensor Fusion Against Inaudible Command Attacks in Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems
Guan, J., Pan, L., Wang, C., Yu, S., Gao, L., & Zheng, X. (2023) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3275931 · Cited by 7
Multi-Centroid Task Descriptor for Dynamic Class Incremental Inference
Cai, T., Zhang, Z., Tan, X., Qu, Y., Jiang, G., Wang, C., & Xie, Y. (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/cvpr52729.2023.00705 · Cited by 7
Reliable Gradient-free and Likelihood-free Prompt Tuning
Shen, M., Ghosh, S. K., Sattigeri, P., Das, S., Bu, Y., & Wornell, G. W. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.183 · Cited by 8
Rumberger, J. L., Franzen, J., Hirsch, P., Albrecht, J.-P., & Kainmueller, D. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00410 · Cited by 8
Farag, M., Kierdorf, J., & Roscher, R. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00072 · Cited by 7
Kumar, A., Singh, U. K., & Pradhan, B. (2024) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119943 · Cited by 7
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
