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 2,601–2,700 of 3,447
Ogurtsov, S. S., Efremov, V., & Владимирович, Л. А. (2024) · Principles of the Ecology · doi:10.15393/j1.art.2024.14662 · Cited by 3
Robustness Attributes to Safeguard Machine Learning Models in Production
Abdelkader, H., Abdelrazek, M., Schneider, J.-G., Rani, P., & Vasa, R. (2023) · IEEE Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1109/ieeeconf58110.2023.10520555 · Cited by 3
Double Confidence Calibration Focused Distillation for Task-Incremental Learning
Fu, Z., Wang, Z., Yu, C., Xu, X., & Li, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2024.3418811 · Cited by 2
SemanticSpray++: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving in Wet Surface Conditions
Piroli, A., Dallabetta, V., Kopp, J., Walessa, M., Meißner, D., & Dietmayer, K. (2024) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv55156.2024.10588458 · Cited by 2
A Metacognitive Approach to Out-of-Distribution Detection for Segmentation
Gummadi, M., Kent, D., Schmeckpeper, K., & Eaton, E. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10611287 · Cited by 2
Kasmarik, K., Khani, M. M., Abpeikar, S., et al. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3689626 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Daily Wildfire Risk Prediction Application Through Interpretable Machine Learning Results
Apostolakis, A., Girtsou, S., Alexis, K., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) · doi:10.1109/igarss53475.2024.10641551 · Cited by 2
Otem-IGCD: An Optimal Transport-based EM Framework for Imbalanced Generalized Category Discovery
Li, Z., Dai, B., Meinel, C., & Yang, H. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651384 · Cited by 2
Self-Calibrating Vicinal Risk Minimisation for Model Calibration
Liu, J., Ye, C., Cui, R., & Barnes, N. M. (2024) · 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/cvpr52733.2024.00321 · Cited by 2
Breaking the Limits of Reliable Prediction via Generated Data
Cheng, Z., Zhu, F., Zhang, X.-Y., & Liu, C. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-024-02221-5 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty Estimation for Tumor Prediction with Unlabeled Data
Yun, J., Abousamra, S., Chen, L., Gupta, R., Kurç, T., Samaras, D., Dyke, A. L. V., Saltz, J. H., & Chen, C. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00688 · Cited by 3
Hongshu, L., Seedat, N., & Ive, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1374162 · Cited by 5
Yue, J., Wang, J., Zhang, S., Ma, Z., Shi, Y., & Lin, Y. (2024) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106896 · Cited by 2
Probabilistic Parameter Estimators and Calibration Metrics for Pose Estimation from Image Features
Valentin, R., Katz, S. M., Lee, J., Walker, D., Sorgenfrei, M., & Kochenderfer, M. J. (2024) · IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) · doi:10.1109/dasc62030.2024.10748707 · Cited by 2
Sakib, S. K., Amariucai, G. T., & Guan, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2024.3516585 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty-Aware Deployment of Pre-trained Language-Conditioned Imitation Learning Policies
Wu, B., Lee, B. D., Daniilidis, K., Bucher, B., & Matni, N. (2024) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros58592.2024.10802849 · Cited by 2
Janjua, M. G., Kaiser, K., Stadelmayer, T., Schoenfeldt, S., & Іссаков, В. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3520810 · Cited by 2
Navigating the unknown: out-of-distribution detection for medical imaging
Fuchs, M., Angelopoulos, A. N., Paschali, M., Baumgartner, C. F., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-44-323761-4.00013-4 · Cited by 2
Impact of pectoral muscle removal on deep-learning-based breast cancer risk prediction
Klaneček, Ž., Wang, Y., Wagner, T., Cockmartin, L., Marshall, N., Schott, B., Deatsch, A. E., Studen, A., Jarm, K., Krajc, M., et al. (2025) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/adb367 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty quantification in deep neural networks for multi-sensor Earth observation
Roy, S., & Saha, S. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-44-326484-9.00021-x · Cited by 2
Multi-sensor deep learning for glacier mapping
Diaconu, C., Heidler, K., Bamber, J. L., & Zekollari, H. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-44-326484-9.00024-5 · Cited by 6
Assessing the quality of whole slide images in cytology from nuclei features
Barthe, P., Brixtel, R., Caillot, Y., Lemoine, B., Renouf, A., Thurotte, V., Beniken, O., Bougleux, S., & Lézoray, O. (2025) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2025.100420 · Cited by 2
Gong, S., & Ma, C. (2025) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e27020196 · Cited by 2
Application of Boosting in Recommender Systems
Zharova, M. A., & Цурков, В. И. (2024) · Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International · doi:10.1134/s1064230724700680 · Cited by 2
Learning Emotion Category Representation to Detect Emotion Relations Across Languages
Wang, X., & Zong, C. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3545447 · Cited by 2
Ji, C., Cheng, T., Li, S., Gu, J., & Cheng, L. (2025) · Marine Geodesy · doi:10.1080/01490419.2025.2474481 · Cited by 2
Efficient and Effective Model Extraction
Zhu, H., Hu, W., Liang, S., Li, F., Wang, W., & Wang, S. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10887780 · Cited by 3
Improving model calibration in bone marrow cell classification through mixup and center loss fusion
Cheng, S., Lu, Q., Guo, Q., Lin, Y., Li, M., Zhao, X., Guo, L., Li, J., Li, J., Zhang, Q., et al. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110620 · Cited by 2
Regression Recalibration by Learning PIT Map Values
Qian, C., Ries, D., Liang, F., et al. (2025) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2025.2464004 · Cited by 2
Towards the Uncertainty Quantification of AI-Models in 6G Networks
Keramidi, I. P., Zervou, P., Lakoumentas, J., Ramantas, K., & Verikoukis, C. V. (2024) · IEEE International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD) · doi:10.1109/camad62243.2024.10943096 · Cited by 2
Jung, J., Yang, M., Won, H., Kim, J., Han, J. M., Hwang, J. S., Hwang, D. D.-J., & Han, J. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00867 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty Aware Interest Point Detection and Description
Zeng, J., Gu, Z., Liu, W., Cai, L., & Cheng, J. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00215 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty-Guided Metric Learning Without Labels
Devalraju, D. V., & Sekhar, C. C. (2025) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00683 · Cited by 2
Prior2Posterior: Model Prior Correction for Long-Tailed Learning
Bhat, S., More, A., Soni, M., & Agrawal, S. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00133 · Cited by 2
Ahmed, S. T., Hefenbrock, M., & Tahoori, M. B. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3676536.3676804 · Cited by 2
Leveraging Neural Networks and Calibration Measures for Confident Feature Selection
Gharoun, H., Yazdanjue, N., Khorshidi, M. S., Chen, F., & Gandomi, A. H. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tetci.2025.3535659 · Cited by 2
Example-Based Concept Analysis Framework for Deep Weather Forecast Models
Kim, S., Choi, J., Lee, S., & Choi, J. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems · doi:10.1175/aies-d-24-0079.1 · Cited by 2
Postprocessing of convection permitting precipitation forecast using UNets
Esquivel-González, M., González, A., Pérez, J. C., & Díaz, J. P. (2025) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103255 · Cited by 2
Zhu, S., Zhang, Y., Fang, W. H., et al. (2025) · Swarm and Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2025.101978 · Cited by 2
Park, S., Lee, D., Lee, J. Y., et al. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128756 · Cited by 2
Vocal Call Locator Benchmark (VCL) for localizing rodent vocalizations from multi-channel audio
Peterson, R. E., Tanelus, A., Ick, C., Mimica, B., Francis, N., Ivan, V. J., Choudhri, A., Falkner, A. L., Murthy, M., Schneider, D. M., et al. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-3375 · Cited by 2
McDonnell, M. D., Mostafa, H., Wang, R., & van Schaik, A. (2019) · Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS) · doi:10.1109/acirs.2019.8936030 · Cited by 3
Empirical Study of MC-Dropout in Various Astronomical Observing Conditions.
Kennamer, N., Ihler, A., & Kirkby, D. P. (2019) · Cited by 2
Data Invariants: On Trust in Data-Driven Systems.
Fariha, A., Tiwari, A., Radhakrishna, A., Gulwani, S., & Meliou, A. (2020) · Cited by 2
On the Transferability of Minimal Prediction Preserving Inputs in Question Answering
Longpre, S., Lu, Y., & DuBois, C. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.101 · Cited by 2
Ulyah, S. M., Rifada, M., & Ana, E. (2020) · International Seminar on Science and Technology (ISSTEC) · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.201010.022 · Cited by 2
Wang, Y., Yao, S., & Xu, T. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3062747 · Cited by 2
False Positive Detection and Prediction Quality Estimation for LiDAR Point Cloud Segmentation
Colling, P., Rottmann, M., Roese-Koerner, L., & Gottschalk, H. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) · doi:10.1109/ictai52525.2021.00011 · Cited by 2
Gradient Regularization as Approximate Variational Inference
Unlu, A., & Aitchison, L. (2021) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e23121629 · Cited by 2
Oliveira, A. A. A. D. M., Wang, Z., & Hirata, R. (2022) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw56347.2022.00474 · Cited by 2
Lim, J.-B., Baek, Y., & Chae, B. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3228573 · Cited by 2
“World Knowledge” in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension
Liusie, A., Raina, V., & Gales, M. (2023) · Fact Extraction and VERification Workshop (FEVER) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.fever-1.5 · Cited by 3
A Case for Two-stage Inference with Knowledge Caching
Park, G., Hwang, C., & Park, K. (2019) · doi:10.1145/3325413.3329789 · Cited by 2
Knowing What You Know in Brain Segmentation Using Bayesian Deep Neural Networks
McClure, P., Rho, N., Lee, J. A., Kaczmarzyk, J., Zheng, C. Y., Ghosh, S., Nielson, D. M., Thomas, A. G., Bandettini, P. A., & Pereira, F. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2019.00067 · Cited by 59
Human Machine Joint Decision Making in Distorted Surveillance Scenario
Liu, S., Zhao, S., Pang, Y., & Chen, Z. (2019) · China Symposium on Cognitive Computing and Hybrid Intelligence (CCHI) · doi:10.1109/cchi.2019.8901918 · Cited by 2
On Probability Calibration of Recurrent Text Recognition Network
Zhu, X., Wang, J., Hong, Z., Guo, J., & Xiao, J. Z. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-36718-3_36 · Cited by 2
Active Bayesian Assessment of Black-Box Classifiers
Ji, D., Logan, R. L., Smyth, P., & Mark Steyvers, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16968 · Cited by 4
Training Confidence-Calibrated Classifier via Distributionally Robust Learning
Wu, H., & Wang, M. D. (2020) · IEEE Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac48688.2020.0-230 · Cited by 2
Accelerating Convergence of Replica Exchange Stochastic Gradient MCMC via Variance Reduction
Deng, W., Feng, Q., Karagiannis, G., Lin, G., & Liang, F. (2020) · Durham Research Online (Durham University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.01084 · Cited by 3
The role of mutual information in variational classifiers
Vera, M., Vega, L. J. R., & Piantanida, P. (2023) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06337-6 · Cited by 2
Homomorphic Interpolation Network for Unpaired Image-to-image Translation
Chen, Y.-C., & Jia, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2020.3036543 · Cited by 2
Don’t Read Too Much Into It: Adaptive Computation for Open-Domain Question Answering
Wu, Y., Minervini, P., Stenetorp, P., & Riedel, S. (2020) · Workshop on Simple and Efficient Natural Language Processing (SustaiNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.sustainlp-1.9 · Cited by 2
Weakly Supervised Label Smoothing
Penha, G., & Hauff, C. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72240-1_33 · Cited by 2
Predictive Uncertainty in Neural Network-Based Financial Market Forecasting
Maeda, I., Matsushima, H., Sakaji, H., Izumi, K., deGraw, D., Kato, A., & Kitano, M. (2021) · International Journal of Smart Computing and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.52731/ijscai.v5.i1.541 · Cited by 2
Making Heads and Tails of Models with Marginal Calibration for Sparse Tagsets
Kranzlein, M., Liu, N. F., & Schneider, N. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.423 · Cited by 3
Robust Neural Regression via Uncertainty Learning
Mashrur, A., Luo, W., Zaidi, N. A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9533617 · Cited by 2
Robust Selective Classification of Skin Lesions with Asymmetric Costs
Carse, J., Süveges, T., Hogg, S., Trucco, E., Proby, C. M., Fleming, C., & McKenna, S. J. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87735-4_11 · Cited by 2
Marginally calibrated response distributions for end-to-end learning in autonomous driving
Hoffmann, C., & Klein, N. (2023) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/22-aoas1693 · Cited by 4
Transductive Image Segmentation: Self-training and Effect of Uncertainty Estimation
Kamnitsas, K., Winzeck, S., Kornaropoulos, E., Whitehouse, D. P., Englman, C., Phyu, P., Pao, N., Menon, D. K., Rueckert, D., Das, T., et al. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87722-4_8 · Cited by 3
Not So Fast, Classifier – Accuracy and Entropy Reduction in Incremental Intent Classification
Hrycyk, L., Zarcone, A., & Hahn, L. (2021) · Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI (NLP4ConvAI) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.nlp4convai-1.6 · Cited by 2
Acceptance and Rejection Zones for a Classifier’s Predictions in Deep Learning
Samake, A., & Boulmane, L. (2021) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing in Data Sciences (ICDS) · doi:10.1109/icds53782.2021.9626739 · Cited by 2
Assessing Deep Neural Networks as Probability Estimators
Pan, Y. R., Kuo, K., Rilee, M. L., & Yu, H. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671328 · Cited by 2
Uncertainty from Motion for DNN Monocular Depth Estimation
Sudhakar, S., Sze, V., & Karaman, S. (2022) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra46639.2022.9812222 · Cited by 2
A Deterministic Approximation to Neural SDEs
Look, A., Kandemir, M., Rakitsch, B., & Peters, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3202237 · Cited by 4
Variational Bootstrap for Classification
Kozyrskiy, B. L., Milios, D., & Filippone, M. (2022) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.178 · Cited by 3
Improving Clustering Uncertainty-weighted Embeddings for Active Domain Adaptation
Wu, S. F., & Lin, H.-T. (2022) · Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (TAAI) · doi:10.1109/taai57707.2022.00013 · Cited by 2
Efficient and generalizable tuning strategies for stochastic gradient MCMC
Coullon, J., South, L. F., & Nemeth, C. (2023) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-023-10233-3 · Cited by 2
Confidence-aware calibration and scoring functions for curriculum learning
Ao, S., Rueger, S., & Siddharthan, A. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Vision · doi:10.1117/12.2679353 · Cited by 4
On the Calibration and Uncertainty with Pólya-Gamma Augmentation for Dialog Retrieval Models
Ye, T., Si, S., Wang, J., Cheng, N., Li, Z., & Xiao, J. Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26630 · Cited by 2
Calibration Meets Explanation: A Simple and Effective Approach for Model Confidence Estimates
Li, D., Hu, B., & Chen, Q. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.178 · Cited by 3
Early Guessing for Dialect Identification
Kanjirangat, V., Samardżić, T., Rinaldi, F., & Dolamic, L. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.479 · Cited by 2
Robust Representation Learning
Cui, G., Liu, Z., Lin, Y., & Sun, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1600-9_8 · Cited by 2
Phase-Correlation Based Sea Ice Motion Tracking and Classification Using Spaceborne SAR Imagery
Frost, A., Imber, J., Murashkin, D., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1109/oceanslimerick52467.2023.10244401 · Cited by 2
Evaluating N-best Calibration of Natural Language Understanding for Dialogue Systems
Khojah, R., Berman, A., & Larsson, S. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.sigdial-1.54 · Cited by 2
Estimating Large Language Model Capabilities without Labeled Test Data
Fu, H. Y., Ye, Q., Xu, A., Ren, X., & Jia, R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.639 · Cited by 6
Wolf, D. W., Ulrich, M., & Kapoor, N. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00443 · Cited by 2
The Robust Semantic Segmentation UNCV2023 Challenge Results
Yu, X., Zuo, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., Zhao, J., Yang, Y., Jiao, L., Peng, R., Wang, X., Zhang, J., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00496 · Cited by 2
Model Calibration in Dense Classification with Adaptive Label Perturbation
Liu, J., Ye, C., Wang, S., Cui, R., Zhang, J., Zhang, K., & Barnes, N. M. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00114 · Cited by 2
MS-EBDL: Reliable Glaucoma Assessment via Sufficient Epistemic Uncertainty
Zhao, R., Ma, R., Zhou, L., Jia, X., & Liu, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10386009 · Cited by 2
Mobiprox: Supporting Dynamic Approximate Computing on Mobiles
Fabjančič, M., Machidon, O. M., Sharif, H., Zhao, Y., Misailovíc, S., & Pejović, V. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3365957 · Cited by 2
Addressing the Binning Problem in Calibration Assessment through Scalar Annotations
Jiang, Z., Liu, A., & Durme, B. V. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00636 · Cited by 7
Demystifying Deep Learning: Understanding the Inner Workings of Neural Network
Sreerama, J., & Sistla, S. M. K. (2022) · Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology · doi:10.60087/jklst.vol1.n1.p129 · Cited by 2
Bayesian Over-the-Air FedAvg via Channel Driven Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics
Zhang, B., Liu, D., Simeone, O., & Zhu, G. (2023) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom54140.2023.10437650 · Cited by 2
Hystoc: Obtaining Word Confidences for Fusion of End-To-End ASR Systems
Beneš, K., Kocour, M., & Burget, L. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10446739 · Cited by 2
Watch Your Head: Assembling Projection Heads to Save the Reliability of Federated Models
Chen, J., Zhu, J., Zheng, Q., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i10.29012 · Cited by 2
Boldness-Recalibration for Binary Event Predictions
Guthrie, A. P., & Franck, C. T. (2024) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2024.2339266 · Cited by 2
Elodi: Ensemble Logit Difference Inhibition for Positive-Congruent Training
Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Xiong, Y., Yang, S., Xia, W., Tu, Z., Schiele, B., & Soatto, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3392724 · Cited by 7
Rethinking Evaluation Metric for Probability Estimation Models Using Esports Data
Choi, E., Kim, J.-Y., & Lee, W.-K. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom60117.2023.00374 · Cited by 2
Deng, Z., Huang, Z., Wei, S., & Zhang, J. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12172714 · Cited by 2
Arnold, S., & Ziegel, J. F. (2025) · Bernoulli · doi:10.3150/24-bej1764 · Cited by 2
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
