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 2,001–2,100 of 3,447
When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research
Son, G., Hong, J., Fan, H., Nam, H., Ko, H., Lim, S., Song, J., Choi, J., Paulo, G., Yu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11855 · Cited by 5
“Alongside pass@4 , calibration [53, 54] indicates how much we should trust a model’s predictions.”
Ahmed, F., & Courville, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5712 · Cited by 5
Learning label smoothing for text classification
Ren, H. Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Y., & Sun, W. (2024) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2005 · Cited by 8
Validation and Comparison of Non-stationary Cognitive Models: A Diffusion Model Application
Schumacher, L., Schnuerch, M., Voß, A., & Radev, S. T. (2024) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-024-00218-4 · Cited by 7
Post-hoc out-of-distribution detection for cardiac MRI segmentation
Arega, T. W., Bricq, S., & Mériaudeau, F. (2024) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2024.102476 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty Quantification and Quality Control for Heatmap-Based Landmark Detection Models
Feng, Y., Yang, J., Tang, L.-Z., Sun, S., & Wang, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2025.3564267 · Cited by 5
Rikhye, R. V., Loh, A., Hong, G., Singh, P., Smith, M. A., Muralidharan, V., Wong, D., Sayres, R., Jain, A., Phung, M., et al. (2025) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105766 · Cited by 9
A Diagnosis-Based Siamese Network for Fault Detection Through Transfer Learning
Neto, J. G., Figueiredo, K., Soares, J. B. P., & Brandão, A. L. T. (2025) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00809 · Cited by 7
Improving knowledge distillation via multi-level normalization and multi-level decoupling
Ye, Z., Lyu, W., Guo, Q., Deng, Z., & Xu, W. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113958 · Cited by 5
The Role of Teacher Calibration in Knowledge Distillation
Kim, S., Park, S., Lee, J., & Kwak, N. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3585106 · Cited by 5
Tang, J., Tan, K., Tang, J., et al. (2025) · Additive manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2025.104887 · Cited by 5
Vahdani, A. M., Shariatnia, M., Rajpurkar, P., & Pareek, A. (2025) · Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · doi:10.1002/ksa.12737 · Cited by 5
Yagob, F., & Sąsiadek, J. Z. (2025) · World Electric Vehicle Journal · doi:10.3390/wevj16080441 · Cited by 5
Pastore, E. P., & Rango, F. D. (2026) · Molecular Informatics · doi:10.1002/minf.70027 · Cited by 6
Feature Extraction for Out of Distribution Detection via Self-Supervised Learning
Thorp, C., Sisti, S., & Bennette, W. D. (2022) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla55696.2022.00153 · Cited by 5
Zhao, Z., Li, P., Dai, Y., Min, Z., & Chen, L. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13158953 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty Estimation for Complex Text Detection in Spanish
Abreu-Cardenas, M., Calderón-Ramírez, S., & Solís, M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on BioInspired Processing (BIP) · doi:10.1109/bip60195.2023.10379278 · Cited by 6
Improving imbalance classification via ensemble learning based on two-stage learning
Liu, N., Wang, J., Zhu, Y., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2023.1296897 · Cited by 5
WDiscOOD: Out-of-Distribution Detection via Whitened Linear Discriminant Analysis
Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Xu, R., & Vela, P. A. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00488 · Cited by 9
A Review Study on Functional Safety Verification and Validation for Autonomous Vehicles
Haspolat, C., Celik, E., Aygun, M., Ertaş, I. C., & Karaduman, M. (2023) · National Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ELECO) · doi:10.1109/eleco60389.2023.10416071 · Cited by 6
Azizi, S. P. (2024) · Physica D Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/j.physd.2024.134203 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty quantification via localized gradients for deep learning-based medical image assessments
Schott, B., Pinchuk, D., Santoro-Fernandes, V., Klaneček, Ž., Rivetti, L., Deatsch, A. E., Perlman, S. B., Li, Y., & Jeraj, R. (2024) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad611d · Cited by 5
Causal Evidence Learning for Trusted Open Set Recognition Under Covariate Shift
Bao, Q., Chen, L., Zhang, F., Wang, J., & Zhang, C. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2024.3445182 · Cited by 5
Chu, L., Alghafis, A., & Molisch, A. F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2024.3445285 · Cited by 5
Multi-Source-Free Domain Adaptation via Uncertainty-Aware Adaptive Distillation
Song, Y., Fan, J., Liu, D., & Cai, W. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635548 · Cited by 5
Overcoming Overconfidence for Active Learning
Hwang, Y., Jo, W., Hong, J., & Choi, Y. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3449915 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty-Aware AB3DMOT by Variational 3D Object Detection
Oleksiienko, I., & Iosifidis, A. (2024) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip51287.2024.10647838 · Cited by 5
Generative Probabilistic Meta-Learning for Few-Shot Image Classification
Fu, M., Wang, X., Wang, J., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tetci.2024.3483255 · Cited by 5
Conformal Anomaly Detection for Predictive Maintenance in Thermal Power Plants
Kundačina, O., Vincan, V., Gojić, G., Ninković, V., & Mišković, D. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3546451 · Cited by 6
Breaking Barriers in Thyroid Cytopathology: Harnessing Deep Learning for Accurate Diagnosis
Oh, S. Y., Lee, Y., Kang, D. J., Kwon, H. J., Chakraborty, S., & Park, J. H. (2025) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering12030293 · Cited by 7
Profit-based uncertainty estimation with application to credit scoring
Xu, Y., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2025) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2025.03.007 · Cited by 7
Trustworthy and Practical AI for Healthcare: A Guided Deferral System with Large Language Models
Strong, J., Men, Q., & Noble, J. A. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i27.35063 · Cited by 17
Synthetic Content Generation Impacts on Phishing and Impersonation Attacks
Alauthman, M., Aldweesh, A. Y., Al–Qerem, A., Alkasassbeh, M. S., Alateef, S., & Almomani, A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0832-6.ch009 · Cited by 5
A Learning Paradigm for Selecting Few Discriminative Stimuli in Eye-Tracking Research
Zhong, W., Xia, C., Yu, L., Li, K., Li, Z., Zhang, D., & Han, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3573729 · Cited by 5
Shrikumar, A., & Kundaje, A. B. (2019) · Cited by 5
Harnessing Adversarial Distances to Discover High-Confidence Errors
Bennette, W. D., Maurer, K., & Sisti, S. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9207395 · Cited by 5
Machidon, O. M., Sluga, D., & Pejović, V. (2021) · doi:10.1145/3437984.3458833 · Cited by 5
Zhang, S., Frey, B. E., & Bansal, M. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-demo.33 · Cited by 5
Better, Faster Small Hazard Detection: Instance-Aware Techniques, Metrics and Benchmarking
Geisler, S., Cunha, C. E., & Satzoda, R. K. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2021.3090338 · Cited by 5
SLOVA: Uncertainty estimation using single label one-vs-all classifier
Wójcik, B., Grela, J., Śmieja, M., Misztal, K., & Tabor, J. (2022) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109219 · Cited by 5
Capture Human Disagreement Distributions by Calibrated Networks for Natural Language Inference
Wang, Y., Wang, M., Chen, Y., Tao, S., Guo, J., Su, C., Zhang, M., & Yang, H. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.120 · Cited by 6
Human-Centered Evaluation of Explanations
Boyd-Graber, J. L., Carton, S., Shi, F., Liao, Q. V., Lombrozo, T., Smith, A., & Tan, C. (2022) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-tutorials.4 · Cited by 5
Bits-Ensemble: Toward Light-Weight Robust Deep Ensemble by Bits-Sharing
Cui, Y., Wu, S.-Y., Li, Q., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · doi:10.1109/tcad.2022.3197986 · Cited by 5
Bayesian deep learning methods applied to diabetic retinopathy disease: a review
Ismael, H. R., & Hassan, M. M. (2023) · Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v30.i2.pp1167-1177 · Cited by 7
ModelPred: A Framework for Predicting Trained Model from Training Data
Zeng, Y., Wang, J. T., Chen, S., Just, H. A., Jin, R., & Jia, R. (2023) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml54575.2023.00037 · Cited by 8
Ensemble Multi-Quantiles: Adaptively Flexible Distribution Prediction for Uncertainty Quantification
Xing, Y., Su, Y., & Ma, W. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3288028 · Cited by 5
Lightweight Approaches to DNN Regression Error Reduction: An Uncertainty Alignment Perspective
Li, Z., Zhang, M., Xu, J., Yao, Y., Cao, C., Chen, T., Ma, X., & Lü, J. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00106 · Cited by 5
Das, N., Endo, S., Patel, S., Krewer, C., & Hirche, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Neurorobotics · doi:10.3389/fnbot.2023.1155826 · Cited by 5
Predicting Customer Satisfaction with Soft Labels for Ordinal Classification
Manderscheid, E., & Lee, M. A. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-industry.62 · Cited by 5
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe. How to choose data for morphological inflection.
Muradoğlu, S., & Hulden, M. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.492 · Cited by 5
MIMMO: Multi-Input Massive Multi-Output Neural Network
Ferianc, M., & Rodrigues, M. R. D. (2023) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw59228.2023.00480 · Cited by 5
Optimization of missing value imputation for neural networks
Han, J., & Kang, S. (2023) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119668 · Cited by 5
From Simple to Complex: A Progressive Framework for Document-level Informative Argument Extraction
Huang, Q., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.408 · Cited by 5
Addressing NER Annotation Noises with Uncertainty-Guided Tree-Structured CRFs
Liu, J., Liu, W., Chen, Y., Xu, J., & Zhao, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.872 · Cited by 5
Dong, C., Wang, Z., & Shang, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.32 · Cited by 6
Machine learning for sports betting: Should model selection be based on accuracy or calibration?
Walsh, C., & Joshi, A. (2024) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100539 · Cited by 5
Conformal Autoregressive Generation: Beam Search with Coverage Guarantees
Deutschmann, N., Alberts, M., & Martínez, M. R. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i10.29062 · Cited by 11
Response Enhanced Semi-supervised Dialogue Query Generation
Huang, J., Wang, A., Gao, L., Song, L., & Su, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29790 · Cited by 5
Wang, M., Yang, H., Huang, J., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30167 · Cited by 5
Normalizing flow based uncertainty estimation for deep regression analysis
Zhang, B., Sui, W., Huang, Z., Li, M., & Qi, M. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127645 · Cited by 6
Huang, X. Q., Liu, J., Zhang, Z., Xie, Y., Tang, Y., Zhang, W., & Cui, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2024.3384672 · Cited by 6
Exploring and Exploiting Multi-Modality Uncertainty for Tumor Segmentation on PET/CT
Kang, S., Kang, Y., & Tan, S. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2024.3397332 · Cited by 6
Moeini, M., Ahmadian, R., & Ghatee, M. (2024) · doi:10.1109/sciot62588.2024.10570106 · Cited by 5
Shi, W.-L., Zhu, R.-H., & Li, S. (2024) · IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology (Print) · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2024.3427428 · Cited by 5
Guo, X., Xiang, Y., Yang, Y., Ye, C., Yu, Y., & Ma, T. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108933 · Cited by 5
Grey models for data analysis and decision-making in uncertainty during pandemics
Rajesh, R. (2024) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104881 · Cited by 7
Deepdefense: annotation of immune systems in prokaryotes using deep learning
Hauns, S., Alkhnbashi, O. S., & Backofen, R. (2024) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giae062 · Cited by 5
On the Impact of Model Compression for Bayesian Federated Learning: An Analysis on Healthcare Data
Barbieri, L., Savazzi, S., & Nicoli, M. (2024) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2024.3495586 · Cited by 6
Automating Abercrombie: Machine‐learning trademark distinctiveness
Adarsh, S., Ash, E., Bechtold, S., Beebe, B., & Fromer, J. C. (2024) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12398 · Cited by 5
Classifier surrogates to ensure phase stability in optimisation-based design of solvent mixtures
Karia, T., Chaparro, G., Chachuat, B., et al. (2024) · Digital Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.dche.2024.100200 · Cited by 5
Robust Audio Deepfake Detection using Ensemble Confidence Calibration
Kwok, C. Y., Truong, D.-T., & Yip, J. Q. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889972 · Cited by 5
Fully Bayesian Human-Machine Data Fusion for Robust Dynamic Target Surveillance and Characterization
Muesing, J., Burks, L., Iuzzolino, M. L., et al. (2019) · AIAA SciTech Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2019-2208 · Cited by 5
User-Intended Doppler Measurement Type Prediction Combining CNNs With Smart Post-Processing
Gilbert, A., Holden, M., Eikvil, L., Rakhmail, M., Babić, A., Aase, S. A., Samset, E., & McLeod, K. (2020) · IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2020.3029392 · Cited by 7
Generalized Neural Framework for Learning with Rejection
Asif, A., & Minhas, F. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9206612 · Cited by 5
Cho, I.-S., Lee, Y., & Baek, S. J. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10196834 · Cited by 5
BazNet: A Deep Neural Network for Confident Three-component Backazimuth Prediction
Dickey, J., Borghetti, B. J., & Junek, W. N. (2020) · Pure and Applied Geophysics · doi:10.1007/s00024-020-02578-x · Cited by 5
Don’t Read Too Much Into It: Adaptive Computation for Open-Domain Question Answering
Wu, Y., Riedel, S., Minervini, P., & Stenetorp, P. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.244 · Cited by 5
Action Priors for Large Action Spaces in Robotics
Bíža, O., Wang, D., Platt, R., et al. (2021) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/yaux2734 · Cited by 5
Bayesian Nested Neural Networks for Uncertainty Calibration and Adaptive Compression
Cui, Y., Liu, Z., Li, Q., Chan, A. B., & Xue, C. J. (2021) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00242 · Cited by 5
Cumulative deviation of a subpopulation from the full population
Tygert, M. (2021) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-021-00494-y · Cited by 5
Sparsity Increases Uncertainty Estimation in Deep Ensemble
Dorjsembe, U., Lee, J. H., Choi, B., & Song, J. W. (2021) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers10040054 · Cited by 5
Bayesian Active Learning with Pretrained Language Models.
Margatina, K., Barrault, L., & Αλέτρας, Ν. (2021) · White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 5
Class-wise Calibration: A Case Study on COVID-19 Hate Speech
Obadinma, S., Guo, H., & Zhu, X. (2021) · doi:10.21428/594757db.da1a3d44 · Cited by 4
CATE: CAusality Tree Extractor from Natural Language Requirements
Jadallah, N., Fischbach, J., Frattini, J., & Vogelsang, A. (2021) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) · doi:10.1109/rew53955.2021.00018 · Cited by 6
An Overview of Uncertainty Calibration for Text Classification and the Role of Distillation
Guo, H., Pasunuru, R., & Bansal, M. (2021) · Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.repl4nlp-1.29 · Cited by 5
Deep Neural Network Calibration for E2E Speech Recognition System
Lee, M.-H., & Chang, J. (2021) · Interspeech (USB) · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2021-176 · Cited by 5
Poms, F., Sarukkai, V., Mullapudi, R. T., Sohoni, N. S., Mark, W. R., Ramanan, D., & Fatahalian, K. (2021) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01053 · Cited by 5
Adversarial Regularization as Stackelberg Game: An Unrolled Optimization Approach
Zuo, S., Chen, L., Jiang, H., Liu, X., He, P., Gao, J., Chen, W., & Zhao, T. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.527 · Cited by 13
Decoupling Autoencoders for Robust One-vs-Rest Classification
Lübbering, M., Gebauer, M., Ramamurthy, R., Bauckhage, C., & Sifa, R. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa53316.2021.9564136 · Cited by 5
Robustness of Bayesian Neural Networks to White-Box Adversarial Attacks
Uchendu, A., Campoy, D., Menart, C., & Hildenbrandt, A. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering (AIKE) · doi:10.1109/aike52691.2021.00017 · Cited by 5
Inductive Biases for Higher-Order Visual Cognition
Shekhar, S. (2022) · The Atrium (University of Guelph) · doi:10.1002/ail2.48 · Cited by 1
A Data Cartography based MixUp for Pre-trained Language Models
Park, S. Y., & Caragea, C. (2022) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.314 · Cited by 6
Exploiting Mixed Unlabeled Data for Detecting Samples of Seen and Unseen Out-of-Distribution Classes
Sun, Y., & Wang, W. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i8.20814 · Cited by 5
Self-citationZhu, Q., Zheng, G., Shen, J., & Wang, R. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3184694 · Cited by 6
A Study on the Calibrated Confidence of Text Classification Using a Variational Bayes
Lee, J., & Park, S. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12189007 · Cited by 4
Nwosu, L., Li, X., Qian, L., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276250 · Cited by 5
Meta-free few-shot learning via representation learning with weight averaging
Chen, K., & Lee, C.-G. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892722 · Cited by 5
FedUA: An Uncertainty-Aware Distillation-Based Federated Learning Scheme for Image Classification
Lee, S.-M., & Wu, J. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14040234 · Cited by 5
Calibrating AI Models for Few-Shot Demodulation VIA Conformal Prediction
Cohen, K. M., Park, S., Simeone, O., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096780 · Cited by 5
Towards More Reliable Confidence Estimation
Qu, H., Foo, L. G., Li, Y., & Liu, J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3291676 · Cited by 5
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
