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 2,301–2,400 of 3,447
Why have a Unified Predictive Uncertainty? Disentangling it using Deep Split EnsemblesPreprint
Sarawgi, U., Zulfikar, W. D., Khincha, R., & Maes, P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.12406 · Cited by 6
Matthews, T. P., Singh, S., Mombourquette, B., Su, J., Shah, M., Pedemonte, S., Long, A. D., Maffitt, D. R., Gurney, J., Hoil, R. M., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08383 · Cited by 4
Multi-Loss Sub-Ensembles for Accurate Classification with Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Achrack, O., Kellerman, R., & Barzilay, O. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.01917 · Cited by 11
Ask-n-Learn: Active Learning via Reliable Gradient Representations for Image ClassificationPreprint
Venkatesh, B., & Thiagarajan, J. J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.14448 · Cited by 4
Exploring the Uncertainty Properties of Neural Networks' Implicit Priors in the Infinite-Width LimitPreprint
Adlam, B., Lee, J., Xiao, L., Pennington, J., & Snoek, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.07355 · Cited by 13
Sample-efficient reinforcement learning using deep Gaussian processesPreprint
Gadd, C. W. L., Heinonen, M., Lähdesmäki, H. J., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.01226 · Cited by 4
Ab initio machine learning in chemical compound spacePreprint
Huang, B., & von Lilienfeld, O. A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07502 · Cited by 4
Safety-Oriented Pedestrian Motion and Scene Occupancy ForecastingPreprint
Luo, K. Z., Casas, S., Liao, R., Yan, X., Xiong, Y., Zeng, W., & Urtasun, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.02385 · Cited by 4
Robust Federated Learning with Attack-Adaptive AggregationPreprint
Wan, C. P., & Chen, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.05257 · Cited by 13
Sparse Uncertainty Representation in Deep Learning with Inducing WeightsPreprint
Ritter, H., Kukla, M., Zhang, C., & Li, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.14594 · Cited by 7
Gonçalves, C. P., & Rouco, J. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.12.06.20244756 · Cited by 4
Optimizing Black-box Metrics with Iterative Example WeightingPreprint
Hiranandani, G., Mathur, J., Narasimhan, H., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09492 · Cited by 4
Understanding Medical Conversations: Rich Transcription, Confidence Scores & Information ExtractionPreprint
Soltau, H., Wang, M., Izhak Shafran, J., & Shafey, L. E. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.02219 · Cited by 5
Understanding the Under-Coverage Bias in Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Bai, Y., Mei, S., Wang, H., & Xiong, C. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.05515 · Cited by 4
On the Dark Side of Calibration for Modern Neural Networks.Preprint
Singh, A. K., Bay, A., Sengupta, B., & Mirabile, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Structured Dropout Variational Inference for Bayesian Neural NetworksPreprint
Nguyen, S. T., Nguyen, D., Nguyen, K., Than, K., Bui, H., & Ho, N. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07927 · Cited by 5
Uncertainty-based Query Strategies for Active Learning with Transformers.Preprint
Schröder, C., Niekler, A., & Potthast, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 6
Post-hoc Models for Performance Estimation of Machine Learning InferencePreprint
Zhang, X., Oymak, S., & Chen, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.02459 · Cited by 6
Revisiting Design Choices in Model-Based Offline Reinforcement Learning.Preprint
Lu, C., Ball, P., Parker-Holder, J., Osborne, M. A., & Roberts, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Evaluation of Various Open-Set Medical Imaging Tasks with Deep Neural NetworksPreprint
Ge, Z., & Wang, X. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.10888 · Cited by 7
The Science of Rejection: A Research Area for Human ComputationPreprint
Sayin, B., Yang, J., Passerini, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.06736 · Cited by 4
ProSelfLC: Progressive Self Label Correction Towards A Low-Temperature Entropy StatePreprint
Wang, X., Yang, H., Kodirov, E., Mukherjee, S. S., Clifton, D. A., & Robertson, N. M. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.01.498447 · Cited by 4
Probabilistic Spatial Transformer NetworksPreprint
Schwöbel, P., Warburg, F., Jørgensen, M., Madsen, K. H., & Hauberg, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.03637 · Cited by 4
Masakuna, J. F., Nkashama, D. K., Soltani, A., Frappier, M., Tardif, P.-M., & Kabanza, F. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.24185439 · Cited by 4
How Much Should We Trust Large Language Model-Based Measures for Accounting and Finance Research?Preprint
Yoo, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4983334 · Cited by 4
The reasonable effectiveness of domain adaptation for inference of introgressionPreprint
Cobb, K. A., & Smith, M. L. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.01.17.633659 · Cited by 5
Rabby, A. S. A., Chaudhary, M. F. A., Saha, P., Sthanam, V. L., Nakhmani, A., Zhang, C., Barr, R. G., Bon, J. M., Cooper, C. B., Curtis, J. L., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.30.25332459 · Cited by 4
Enhancing Medical Question Answering with LLMs via a Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework
Aljohani, B., & Alsanoosy, T. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17020133 · Cited by 3
Quantifying uncertainty of uplift: Trees and T-learners
Nyberg, O., & Arto Klami, A. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127741 · Cited by 3
Towards automated animal density estimation with acoustic spatial capture-recapture
Wang, Y., Ye, J., Li, X., & Borchers, D. L. (2024) · Biometrics · doi:10.1093/biomtc/ujae081 · Cited by 3
Nguyen, K. T. A., Tran, N. H., & Dinh, Q.-V. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3485479 · Cited by 3
Addressing Topic Leakage in Cross-Topic Evaluation for Authorship Verification
Sawatphol, J., Udomcharoenchaikit, C., & Nutanong, S. Y. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00709 · Cited by 5
Delving Deep into Simplicity Bias for Long-Tailed Image Recognition
Wei, X.-S., Sun, X., Shen, Y., & Wang, P. (2025) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-024-02342-x · Cited by 3
Deep inference of simulated strong lenses in ground-based surveys
Poh, J., Samudre, A., Ćiprijanović, A., Frieman, J. A., Khullar, G., & Nord, B. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/053 · Cited by 3
Self-assessment in machines boosts human Trust
Warmsley, D., Choudhary, K., Rego, J., Viani, E., & Pilly, P. K. (2025) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1557075 · Cited by 3
Bauer, J. C., Trattnig, S., Geng, P., Raffin, T., & Daub, R. (2025) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-025-15786-3 · Cited by 4
Identifying moldy peanut using hyperspectral imaging by correction of noisy labelling
Yuan, D., Xie, Y., Qi, W., et al. (2025) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2025.116741 · Cited by 3
Adaptive Intelligent Radar Target Detection in Time-Varying Sea Clutter via Activate Self-Learning
Wang, X., Wang, Y., & Cui, G. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Radar Systems · doi:10.1109/trs.2025.3580606 · Cited by 3
Zhao, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., Sun, H., Nie, Q., Xiao, Z., Xiao, L., Zhang, F., Hu, Y., & Liu, J. (2025) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2025.112194 · Cited by 5
A calibration test for evaluating set-based epistemic uncertainty representations
Jürgens, M., Mortier, T., Hüllermeier, E., Bengs, V., & Waegeman, W. (2025) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-025-06844-8 · Cited by 3
The Misclassification of Autistic Writing as AI-Generated
Chambers, S., & Kelley, M. C. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98420-4_7 · Cited by 3
Bench, C. A., Desai, V., Moulaeifard, M., Strodthoff, N., Aston, P. J., & Thompson, A. (2025) · Machine Learning Health · doi:10.1088/3049-477x/ae0b74 · Cited by 3
Uncertainty in deep learning for EEG under dataset shifts
Tveter, M., Tveitstøl, T., Hatlestad‐Hall, C., Hammer, H. L., & Haraldsen, I. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103374 · Cited by 4
Explainable AI for the Operating Theater
Rudzicz, F., & Joshi, S. D. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49100-0_25 · Cited by 3
On the usefulness of the fit-on-test view on evaluating calibration of classifiers
Kängsepp, M., Valk, K., & Kull, M. (2025) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-024-06652-6 · Cited by 8
Learning to Double-Check Model Prediction From a Causal Perspective
Deng, X., Feng, F., Wang, X., He, X., Zhang, H., & Chua, T. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3264712 · Cited by 3
Calibrating Student Models for Emotion-related Tasks
Hosseini, M., & Caragea, C. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.629 · Cited by 4
MultiTASC: A Multi-Tenancy-Aware Scheduler for Cascaded DNN Inference at the Consumer Edge
Nikolaidis, S., Venieris, S. I., & Venieris, I. S. (2023) · Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications/IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications · doi:10.1109/iscc58397.2023.10217872 · Cited by 3
EFFECT: An End-to-End Framework for Evaluating Strategies for Parallel AI Anomaly Detection
Stammler, M., Hoefer, J., Kraus, D., et al. (2023) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.08.188 · Cited by 3
Efficient Transformer Inference for Extremely Weak Edge Devices Using Masked Autoencoders
Liu, T., Li, P., Gu, Y., & Liu, P. (2023) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc45041.2023.10279202 · Cited by 3
Computational Optimizations in LLMs
Asesh, A., & Dugar, M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applied Network Technologies (ICMLANT) · doi:10.1109/icmlant59547.2023.10372971 · Cited by 3
MoTIF: a Method for Trustworthy Dynamic Multimodal Learning on Omics
Lu, Y., Peng, R., Jiang, B., & Wang, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10386044 · Cited by 3
Energy-Based Models with Applications to Speech and Language Processing
Ou, Z. (2024) · Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing · doi:10.1561/2000000117 · Cited by 5
Power Control for NN-Based Wireless Distributed Inference With Improved Model Calibration
Hou, Q., Lee, M., Yu, G., & Cai, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2024.3417305 · Cited by 3
Sun, X., Wu, Z., Ji, Y., et al. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124718 · Cited by 3
Bayesian Federated Learning with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo: Algorithm and Theory
Liang, J., Zhang, Q., Deng, W., et al. (2024) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.2024.2380051 · Cited by 3
A Conformalized Learning of a Prediction Set with Applications to Medical Imaging Classification
Hirsch, R., & Goldberger, J. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635187 · Cited by 3
Validity Matters: Uncertainty‐Guided Testing of Deep Neural Networks
Jiang, Z., Li, H., Wang, R., Tian, X., Liang, C., Yan, F., Zhang, J., & Liu, Z. (2024) · Software Testing Verification and Reliability · doi:10.1002/stvr.1894 · Cited by 3
Improving Uncertainty-Error Correspondence in Deep Bayesian Medical Image Segmentation
Mody, P., Chaves-de-Plaza, N. F., Rao, C., Astrenidou, E., de Ridder, M., Hoekstra, N., Hildebrandt, K., & Staring, M. (2024) · The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2024-5gc8 · Cited by 3
Refining Biologically Inconsistent Segmentation Masks with Masked Autoencoders
Sauer, A., Tian, Y., Bewersdorf, J., et al. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00684 · Cited by 3
Perception-based constraint solving for sudoku images
Mulamba, M., Mandi, J., Mahmutoğulları, A. İ., & Guns, T. (2024) · Constraints · doi:10.1007/s10601-024-09372-9 · Cited by 5
Robust quantum dots charge autotuning using neural network uncertainty
Yon, V., Galaup, B., Rohrbacher, C., Rivard, J., Godfrin, C., Li, R., Kubicek, S., Greve, K. D., Gaudreau, L., Dupont-Ferrier, E., et al. (2024) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad88d5 · Cited by 4
Kim, T.-W., & Lee, J.-S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2024.3496473 · Cited by 3
Kucerenko, A., Buddenkotte, T., Apostolova, I. I., Klutmann, S., Ledig, C., & Buchert, R. (2024) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-024-06988-0 · Cited by 3
Heo, J., Lee, Y. J., Kim, J., Kwak, M. G., Park, Y. J., & Kim, S. B. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112824 · Cited by 3
Cohen, G. B., Yaacov, A., Zvi, Y. B., Loutati, R., Lishinsky-Fischer, N., Landau, J., Hope, T., Popovzter, A., & Rosenberg, S. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109491 · Cited by 4
On Calibration of Prompt Learning Using Temperature Scaling
Nguyen, K.-B., & Park, C. J. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3538617 · Cited by 3
Adopting Whisper for Confidence Estimation
Aggarwal, V., Nair, S. S., Verma, Y., & Jogi, Y. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888254 · Cited by 5
VisTa: Visual-contextual and Text-augmented Zero-shot Object-level OOD Detection
Zhang, B., Qu, X., Li, G., Wan, J., & Wang, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888875 · Cited by 3
From Robustness to Improved Generalization and Calibration in Pre-trained Language Models
Jukić, J., & Šnajder, J. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00739 · Cited by 7
Pei, L., Qin, Y., Enciso, Z. M., Cheng, B., Liu, J., Davis, S., Jia, Z., Niemier, M. T., Shi, Y., Hu, X. S., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3676536.3676806 · Cited by 5
Kundačina, O., Vincan, V., & Mišković, D. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslpro.2025.3565216 · Cited by 4
Semi-supervised segmentation on medical images with pseudo label calibration and neural process
Zhang, T., Luo, Y., Wang, X., et al. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107510 · Cited by 3
Classification of Imaging Artifacts in Synthetic Aperture Sonar With Bayesian Deep Learning
Orescanin, M., Olson, D. R., Harrington, B., Geilhufe, M., Hansen, R. E., Duvio, D., & Warakagoda, N. D. (2025) · IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering · doi:10.1109/joe.2025.3538948 · Cited by 3
A Framework for On the Fly Input Refinement for Deep Learning Models
Rathnasuriya, R. (2025) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse-companion66252.2025.00041 · Cited by 3
Short-horizon neonatal seizure prediction using EEG-based deep learning
Kim, J., Amorim, E., Rao, V. R., et al. (2025) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000890 · Cited by 3
Implicit Background Estimation For Semantic Segmentation
Lehman, C., Temel, D., & AlRegib, G. (2019) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip.2019.8803199 · Cited by 3
Wang, Z., Ive, J., Moylett, S., Mueller, C., Cardinal, R. N., Velupillai, S. U., O'Brien, J. T., & Stewart, R. J. (2020) · Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop (ClinicalNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.clinicalnlp-1.19 · Cited by 3
Robust Model Compression Using Deep Hypotheses
Armstrong, O., & Gilad-Bachrach, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16827 · Cited by 3
FESTH: Visual Tracking with Feature Enhancement and Space-time History Frame Networks
Zhuang, Y., Hong, C., Zhang, X., Tang, C., & Zhou, H. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671965 · Cited by 3
Hierarchical Open-Set Recognition for Automatic Target Recognition
Bennette, W. D., Hofmann, N., Wilson, N., & Witter, T. (2021) · IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci50451.2021.9660062 · Cited by 3
Gradient-based Adversarial Attack Detection via Deep Feature Extraction
Michel, A., & Ewetz, R. (2022) · Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon · doi:10.1109/southeastcon48659.2022.9763941 · Cited by 3
On Detection of Out of Distribution Inputs in Deep Neural Networks
Jha, S., & Roy, A. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI) · doi:10.1109/cogmi52975.2021.00044 · Cited by 3
Probabilistic Approach for Road-Users Detection
Melotti, G., Lu, W.-H., Conde, P., Zhao, D., Asvadi, A., Gonçalves, N., & Premebida, C. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3268578 · Cited by 4
Augmentation of Electronic Medical Record Data for Deep Learning
Kennedy, G., Dras, M., & Gallego, B. (2022) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti220144 · Cited by 3
Uncertainty in Predictive Process Monitoring
Portolani, P., Brusaferri, A., Ballarino, A., & Matteucci, M. (2022) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08974-9_44 · Cited by 3
Dawkins, H., & Nejadgholi, I. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.59 · Cited by 3
ASCM: An Answer Space Clustered Prompting Method without Answer Engineering
Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Xi, Z., Ma, B., Wang, L., Dong, R., & Anwar, A. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.193 · Cited by 3
Wang, Q., & Wong, M. D. F. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Aided Design · doi:10.1145/3508352.3549466 · Cited by 3
Cui, Y., Mao, Y. P., Liu, Z., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3241945 · Cited by 3
Damage Segmentation on High-Resolution Coating Images Using a Novel Two-Stage Network Pipeline
Hedrich, K., Hinz, L., & Reithmeier, E. (2023) · Aerospace · doi:10.3390/aerospace10030245 · Cited by 3
UCR-SSL: Uncertainty-Based Consistency Regularization for Semi-Supervised Learning
Lee, S., Kim, H., & Chun, D. (2023) · International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC) · doi:10.1109/iceic57457.2023.10049938 · Cited by 3
Bousquet, P.-M., & Rouvier, M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10094702 · Cited by 3
On Unsupervised Uncertainty-Driven Speech Pseudo-Label Filtering and Model Calibration
Dawalatabad, N., Khurana, S., Laurent, A., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096406 · Cited by 3
ECE-based Deep Ensemble for Neural Network Calibration in Satellite Image Classification
Conde, P., Barros, T., Premebida, C., & Nunes, U. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions · doi:10.1109/icarsc58346.2023.10129562 · Cited by 3
Durumeric, A. E. P., & Voth, G. A. (2023) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/5.0146812 · Cited by 3
Into the unknown: active monitoring of neural networks (extended version)
Kueffner, K., Lukina, A., Schilling, C., & Henzinger, T. A. (2023) · International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10009-023-00711-4 · Cited by 4
Failure Prediction in 2D Document Information Extraction with Calibrated Confidence Scores
Kivimäki, J., Lebedev, A., & Nurminen, J. K. (2023) · IEEE Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac57700.2023.00033 · Cited by 4
Transfer and Active Learning for Dissonance Detection: Addressing the Rare-Class Challenge
Varadarajan, V., Juhng, S., Mahwish, S., Liu, X., Luby, J., Luhmann, C. C., & Schwartz, H. A. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.665 · Cited by 3
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
