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 2,801–2,900 of 3,447
Critic Loss for Image Classification
Rappazzo, B., Ferber, A., & Gomes, C. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla61862.2024.00104 · Cited by 1
FADEL: Uncertainty-aware Fake Audio Detection with Evidential Deep Learning
Kang, J. Y., Yoon, J. W., Kim, S., Han, M. H., & Kim, N. S. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888053 · Cited by 1
LossControl: Defending Membership Inference Attacks by Controlling the Loss
Yang, B., Yang, H., Lu, R., He, H. X., Zhang, W., He, H., & Yadav, R. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889890 · Cited by 1
Can Quality Survive Scale? Toward an Equal-Quality Instance-Dependent Label Noise Model
Song, H., Xiang, Q., & Shu, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888857 · Cited by 1
Self-supervised Speaker Verification with Batch-scale Pseudo-labels Correction
Wang, J., Fang, Z., & He, L. J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888615 · Cited by 1
Park, H., Hong, S., Song, C., Kim, J. W., & Yi, M. Y. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00068 · Cited by 2
Re-Evaluating Group Robustness via Adaptive Class-Specific Scaling
Seo, S., & Han, B. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00812 · Cited by 1
GeneralizeFormer: Layer-Adaptive Model Generation Across Test-Time Distribution Shifts
Ambekar, S., Xiao, Z., Zhen, X., & Snoek, C. G. M. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00638 · Cited by 2
Parametric ρ-Norm Scaling Calibration
Zhang, S., & Xie, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i21.34413 · Cited by 1
Enhancing Synthetic Generated-Images Detection through Post-Hoc Calibration
Dimitri, G. M., Tondi, B., & Barni, M. (2025) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw65960.2025.00087 · Cited by 1
Deriving WMO Cloud Classes From Ground‐Based RGB Pictures With a Residual Neural Network Ensemble
Rosenberger, M., Dorninger, M., & Weißmann, M. (2025) · Earth and Space Science · doi:10.1029/2024ea004112 · Cited by 1
Uncertainty quantification for LiDAR-based maps of ditches and natural streams
Westphal, F., Lidberg, W., Busarello, M. D. S. T., & Ågren, A. M. (2025) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2025.106488 · Cited by 1
Maruccio, F. C., Simões, R., van Aalst, J. E., Brouwer, C. L., Sonke, J., van Ooijen, P. M. A., & Janssen, T. M. (2025) · Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2025.100771 · Cited by 1
Hybrid Uncertainty Metrics-Based Privacy-Preserving Alternating Multimodal Representation Learning
Sun, Z., Huang, Y., Zhang, A., Li, C., Jiang, L., Liao, X., Li, R., & Wan, J. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15105229 · Cited by 1
When AI Hesitates: Methods for Identifying and Managing Model Uncertainty
Urbaite, G. (2025) · Luminis Applied Science and Engineering · doi:10.69760/lumin.2025000203 · Cited by 1
Melanoma Detection with Uncertainty Quantification
Kim, S., Gaibor, E., Matejek, B., & Haehn, D. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi60581.2025.10981143 · Cited by 1
Deng, L., Zhu, X., Cai, K., et al. (2025) · Measurement Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/addddc · Cited by 1
Jia, J., Jia, Q., Zhang, J., Zheng, M., Fu, J., Sun, J., Lai, Z., & Gui, D. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15116224 · Cited by 1
Pseudo-Multiview Learning Using Subjective Logic for Enhanced Classification Accuracy
Ngo, D. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13132085 · Cited by 2
Reinhardt, M., Rommel, E., Heuner, M., & Baschek, B. (2025) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs17142373 · Cited by 1
Ma, R., Chen, S., & Yao, S. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Mobility, Operations, Services and Technologies (MOST) · doi:10.1109/most65065.2025.00012 · Cited by 1
Survival Analysis with Adversarial Regularization
Potter, M., Maxenti, S., & Everett, M. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi64645.2025.00019 · Cited by 2
Systematic Evaluation of Label Noise Effects on Accuracy and Calibration in Deep Neural Networks
Boseak, C. (2025) · Journal of Engineering and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.64142/jeai.1.2.22 · Cited by 1
Evaluation and Improvement of Test Selection for Large Language Models
Quan, L., Jin, W., Hu, Q., Cordy, M., Huang, Y., Ma, L., & Li, X. (2025) · Journal of Software Evolution and Process · doi:10.1002/smr.70057 · Cited by 4
Can RAG Calibrate LLMs for Information Extraction Tasks?
He, J., Kumar, D., & Rasamsetty, P. (2025) · IEEE Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) · doi:10.1109/ccwc62904.2025.10903733 · Cited by 1
Practical guidance on automated sorting of underwater images in plankton ecology research
Sorochan, K. A., Vaswani, A. R., Howard, A., Rühl, S., O’Grady, E., Möller, K. O., & Johnson, C. L. (2025) · ICES Journal of Marine Science · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaf212 · Cited by 2
Norbury, A., Fairs, G., Georgescu, A. L., Nour, M. M., Molimpakis, E., & Goria, S. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-33331-w · Cited by 1
Sajid, M. Z., Hamid, M. F., Yang, Z., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1804329 · Cited by 1
Hamadene, T., Nicoulaud-Gouin, V., Lepage, H., & Fouladirad, M. (2026) · Journal of Soils and Sediments · doi:10.1007/s11368-026-04375-w · Cited by 1
Deep Linear Discriminant Analysis Revisited
Tezekbayev, M., Takhanov, R., Bolatov, A., et al. (2026) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-026-07097-9 · Cited by 1
Reducing overconfident errors in clinical prediction models
Bayly, H., Tripodis, Y., Lenio, S., Patil, P., & Initiative, A. D. N. (2026) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-026-03681-0 · Cited by 1
Leveraging Simple Model Predictions for Enhancing its Performance
Dhurandhar, A., Shanmugam, K., & Luss, R. (2019) · Cited by 1
Weight Averaging Impact on the Uncertainty of Retinal Artery-Venous Segmentation
Lindén, M., Garifullin, A., & Lensu, L. T. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60365-6_6 · Cited by 1
Confidence estimation method for regression neural networks
Shin, D. W., & Koo, H. I. (2021) · Electronics Letters · doi:10.1049/ell2.12185 · Cited by 1
Thought flow nets: From single predictions to trains of model thought
Schuff, H., Adel, H., & Vu, N. T. (2024) · Natural language processing. · doi:10.1017/nlp.2024.41 · Cited by 1
de Diego, J. A., Nadolny, J., Bongiovanni, A. M., Cepa, J., Lara-López, M. A., Gallego, J., Cerviño, M., Sánchez-Portal, M., González-Serrano, J. I., Alfaro, E. J., et al. (2021) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141360 · Cited by 1
On using focal loss for neural network calibration
Mukhoti, J., Kulharia, Sanyal, A., Golodetz, S., Torr, P. H. S., & Dokania, P. (2020) · Cited by 1
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Final Batch Normalization Layer
Kocaman, V., Shir, O. M., & Bäck, T. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90436-4_7 · Cited by 1
Curved SDE-Net Leads to Better Generalization for Uncertainty Estimates of DNNs
Wang, Y., Tan, H., & Yao, S. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86340-1_20 · Cited by 1
Robust Neural Regression via Uncertainty Learning
Mashrur, A., Luo, W., Zaidi, N. A., et al. (2021) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 1
Beyond Full Supervision in Deep Learning
Thome, N. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74478-6_4 · Cited by 1
Exploring the Limits of Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification in Low-Shot Settings
Valdenegro-Toro, M. (2021) · LatinX in AI at Neural Information Processing Systems Conference (LXAI) · doi:10.52591/lxai202112073 · Cited by 1
A study on the calibration of fingerprint classifiers
Peralta, D., Tang, L., Lippeveld, M., & Saeys, Y. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671708 · Cited by 1
Particionamento de Redes Neurais Profundas com Saídas Antecipadas
Pacheco, R. G., & Couto, R. S. (2021) · doi:10.5753/sbrc_estendido.2021.17168 · Cited by 1
On Uncertainty Quantification in Neural Networks: Ensemble Distillation and Weak Supervision
Olmin, A. (2022) · FiF-avhandling · doi:10.3384/9789179293079 · Cited by 1
Tutorial: how to access, process, and label PDS image data for machine learning
Lu, S., Wagstaff, K. L., Alanis, R., Doran, G. B., Grimes, K., & Padams, J. H. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818721-0.00013-6 · Cited by 1
Fast Footstep Planning on Uneven Terrain Using Deep Sequential Models
Sanghvi, H., & Taylor, C. J. (2022) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra46639.2022.9812264 · Cited by 1
Design and Evaluation of Object Classifiers for Probabilistic Decision-Making in Autonomous Systems
Ullah, H., Fan, W., & Wongpiromsarn, T. (2022) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra46639.2022.9812171 · Cited by 1
Calibration of Few-Shot Classification Tasks: Mitigating Misconfidence From Distribution Mismatch
Kim, S., & Yun, S.-Y. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3176090 · Cited by 1
Online Black-Box Confidence Estimation of Deep Neural Networks
Woitschek, F., & Schneider, G. (2022) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv51971.2022.9827314 · Cited by 1
AdamB: Decoupled Bayes by Backprop With Gaussian Scale Mixture Prior
Nishida, K., & Taiji, M. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3203484 · Cited by 1
Semantic enhanced for out-of-distribution detection
Jiang, W., & Yu, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurorobotics · doi:10.3389/fnbot.2022.1018383 · Cited by 1
Aldhahi, W., Albusair, T., & Sull, S. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12010048 · Cited by 1
Effortless Training of Joint Energy-Based Models with Sliced Score Matching
Liu, X., Staudt, D., Lin, C.-T., & Zach, C. (2022) · Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition/Proceedings/International Conference on Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/icpr56361.2022.9956495 · Cited by 1
Uncertainty prediction and calibration using multi-expert gating mechanism
Cao, K., & Xie, Z. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9891958 · Cited by 1
Communication-Efficient Federated Bayesian Learning via Client Selection
Yang, J., Liu, Y., & Kassab, R. (2022) · IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps) · doi:10.1109/gcwkshps56602.2022.10008503 · Cited by 1
PulseNet: A Discriminative Model for Time Division Multiple Access Timeslot Prediction
Wood, A., Upthegrove, T., Funai, C., Thapa, B., Loos, S., & Javorsek, D. (2022) · IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) · doi:10.1109/milcom55135.2022.10017899 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Extraction and Discrimination Based Calibration on Medical Imaging Classification
Sun, X., Huang, Z., Ying, J., & Guowu, Y. (2022) · International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP) · doi:10.1109/iccwamtip56608.2022.10016524 · Cited by 1
Proceedings of the 18th Python in Science Conference
(2019) · Proceedings of the Python in Science Conferences · doi:10.25080/majora-7ddc1dd1-026 · Cited by 1
Entropy Based Feature Regularization to Improve Transferability of Deep Learning Models
Baena, R., Drumetz, L., & Gripon, V. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10095195 · Cited by 1
Surrogate Based Post-HOC Calibration for Distributional Shift
Zhang, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096090 · Cited by 2
Rethinking the Entropy of Instance in Adversarial Training
Kim, M., Tack, J., Shin, J., et al. (2023) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml54575.2023.00029 · Cited by 1
Sayin, B., Yang, J., Passerini, A., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230085 · Cited by 1
Petri nets modeling of automated guided vehicle system, fault detection and its treatment
Priya, & Kumawat, S. (2023) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0148299 · Cited by 1
NCTV: Neural Clamping Toolkit and Visualization for Neural Network Calibration
Hsiung, L., Tang, Y.-C., Chen, P., & Ho, T.-Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i13.27074 · Cited by 1
UCoL: Unsupervised Learning of Discriminative Facial Representations via Uncertainty-Aware Contrast
Wang, H., Li, M., Song, Y., Zhang, Y., & Chi, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i2.25348 · Cited by 1
Axial Constraints for Global Matching-Based Optical Flow Estimation
Kim, E., Jun, W., & Heo, J. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3290993 · Cited by 1
How Image Corruption and Perturbation Affect Out-of-Distribution Generalization and Calibration
Tada, K., & Naganuma, H. (2023) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191806 · Cited by 1
Spikemoid: Updated Spike-based Loss Methods for Classification
Jurado, M., Dunn, A., & Shapero, S. (2023) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn54540.2023.10191787 · Cited by 1
Promoting Fairness in Classification of Quality of Medical Evidence
Šuster, S., Baldwin, T., & Verspoor, K. M. (2023) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bionlp-1.39 · Cited by 1
Contrastive Learning with Adversarial Examples for Alleviating Pathology of Language Model
Zhan, P., Yang, J., Huang, X. X., Jing, C., Li, J., & Wang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.358 · Cited by 1
Batch Normalization Preconditioning for Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics
Lange, S. L. S., Deng, W., Ye, Q., et al. (2023) · Journal of Machine Learning · doi:10.4208/jml.220726a · Cited by 1
Triple-Hybrid Energy-based Model Makes Better Calibrated Natural Language Understanding Models
Xu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.21 · Cited by 1
Lightning Talk: Trinity - Assured Neuro-symbolic Model Inspired by Hierarchical Predictive Coding
Jha, S. (2023) · Proceedings - ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference · doi:10.1109/dac56929.2023.10247803 · Cited by 1
Revisiting the Mark Conditional Independence Assumption in Neural Marked Temporal Point Processes
Bosser, T., & Taieb, S. B. (2023) · European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (ESANN) · doi:10.14428/esann/2023.es2023-64 · Cited by 1
Continuous Adaptation of Deep Learning Models for Optical Quality Monitoring Tasks
Bauer, J. C., & Daub, R. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) · doi:10.1109/etfa54631.2023.10275699 · Cited by 1
Neural Network Calibration for CTR Prediction
Biçici, E., & Sarıbaş, H. (2023) · doi:10.1109/ubmk59864.2023.10286733 · Cited by 1
A Dataset for Radar-based Traffic Gesture Recognition with Out-of-Distribution Detection
Kern, N., Laqua, D., & Waldschmidt, C. (2023) · European Radar Conference (EuRAD) · doi:10.23919/eurad58043.2023.10289248 · Cited by 1
Gray Learning From Non-IID Data With Out-of-Distribution Samples
Zhao, Z., Cao, L., & Wang, C. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3330475 · Cited by 2
Johnstone, C., & Nettleton, D. S. (2023) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2023.2283199 · Cited by 1
RECAL: Sample-Relation Guided Confidence Calibration over Tabular Data
Wang, H., Zhang, Z., Hu, M., Wang, Q., Chen, L., Bian, Y., & Wu, B. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.482 · Cited by 1
SELFOOD: Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank
Mekala, D., Samavedhi, A., Dong, C., & Shang, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.719 · Cited by 2
mReFinED: An Efficient End-to-End Multilingual Entity Linking System
Limkonchotiwat, P., Cheng, W., Christodoulopoulos, C., Saffari, A., & Lehmann, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.1007 · Cited by 1
Evaluating Classifier Confidence for Surface EMG Pattern Recognition
Furui, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · doi:10.1109/embc40787.2023.10340977 · Cited by 1
Re-Thinking Classification Confidence with Model Quality Quantification
Pan, Y., & Zhao, H. (2023) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros55552.2023.10341548 · Cited by 1
You can have your ensemble and run it too – Deep Ensembles Spread Over Time
Meding, I., Bodin, A., Tonderski, A., Johnander, J., Petersson, C., & Svensson, L. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00434 · Cited by 1
Outeiral, R. R., Silverio, N., González, P. J., et al. (2023) · Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2023.100528 · Cited by 1
Robust Detection of Background Acoustic Scene in the Presence of Foreground Speech
Song, S., Song, Y., & Madhu, N. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14020609 · Cited by 1
Causal Intervention for Measuring Confidence in Drug-Target Interaction Prediction
Ye, W., Li, C., Xie, Y., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10385836 · Cited by 1
Pricing Used Vehicles at Volkswagen Financial Services AG
Jawed, S., Stening, J., & Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata59044.2023.10386431 · Cited by 1
Javanbakhat, M., Starke, L., Waiczies, S., & Lippert, C. (2024) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2024.103967 · Cited by 1
MultiTASC++: A continuously adaptive scheduler for edge-based multi-device cascade inference
Nikolaidis, S., Venieris, S. I., & Venieris, I. S. (2024) · ITU Journal on Future and Evolving Technologies · doi:10.52953/tbyb6219 · Cited by 1
What Learned Representations and Influence Functions Can Tell Us About Adversarial Examples
Tonni, S. M., & Dras, M. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-ijcnlp.35 · Cited by 1
Distilling Distributional Uncertainty from a Gaussian Process
Wong, J. H. M., & Chen, N. F. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10448172 · Cited by 1
Efficient Learning on Successive Test Time Augmentation
Pan, S., Yu, J., Lee, D.-W., Chen, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, Q., & Yoo, B. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10448390 · Cited by 2
Confidence Estimation Based on the Explanations of Model’s Predictions
Wu, K., Huang, C., & Yao, X. (2023) · International Conference on Neuromorphic Computing (ICNC) · doi:10.1109/icnc59488.2023.10462812 · Cited by 1
Improving GNN Calibration with Discriminative Ability: Insights and Strategies
Fang, Y., Li, X., Chen, Q., & Wang, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i11.29082 · Cited by 1
Closing the Gap: Achieving Better Accuracy-Robustness Tradeoffs against Query-Based Attacks
Zimmer, P., Andreina, S., Marson, G. A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30187 · Cited by 1
U-trustworthy Models. Reliability, Competence, and Confidence in Decision-Making
Vashistha, R. N., & Farahi, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i18.29972 · Cited by 1
Enhancing Multi-Finger Vein Recognition Based on Multi-Task Learning
Wang, X., & Fang, P. (2023) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Human-Computer Interaction and Robotics (AIHCIR) · doi:10.1109/aihcir61661.2023.00040 · Cited by 1
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
