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 3,001–3,100 of 3,447
Reliable Uncertainties for Bayesian Neural Networks using Alpha-divergencesPreprint
Hortua, H. J., Malagò, L., & Volpi, R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.06729 · Cited by 2
Fixing Asymptotic Uncertainty of Bayesian Neural Networks with Infinite ReLU FeaturesPreprint
Kristiadi, A., Hein, M., & Hennig, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Scalable Bayesian neural networks by layer-wise input augmentationPreprint
Trinh, T., Samuel Kaski, A., & Heinonen, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.13498 · Cited by 1
Attentive Clustering Processes.Preprint
Pakman, A., Wang, Y., Lee, Y., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Amortized Conditional Normalized Maximum LikelihoodPreprint
Zhou, A., & Levine, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained LearningPreprint
Chamon, L. F. O., Paternain, S., & Ribeiro, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.12344 · Cited by 1
Learning to Stop: Dynamic Simulation Monte-Carlo Tree SearchPreprint
Lan, L.-C., Tsai, M.-Y., Wu, T.-R., Wu, I., & Hsieh, C. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07910 · Cited by 1
Image-Based Jet AnalysisPreprint
Kagan, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.09719 · Cited by 1
Conformance Constraint Discovery: Measuring Trust in Data-Driven SystemsPreprint
Fariha, A., Tiwari, A., Radhakrishna, A., Gulwani, S., & Meliou, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.01289 · Cited by 1
Vu, T., & Bao, T. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-171960/v1 · Cited by 1
Continuous Monitoring of Blood Pressure with Evidential RegressionPreprint
Kim, H., Kang, W. H., Lee, H., & Kim, N. S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.03542 · Cited by 1
Gomariz, Á., Portenier, T., Nombela‐Arrieta, C., & Göksel, O. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.11865 · Cited by 1
Analytically Tractable Inference in Deep Neural NetworksPreprint
Nguyen, L. H., & Goulet, J.-A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.05461 · Cited by 4
AlignMix: Improving representations by interpolating aligned featuresPreprint
Venkataramanan, S., Ewa Kijak, C., Amsaleg, L., & Avrithis, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Accurate and Reliable Forecasting using Stochastic Differential EquationsPreprint
Cui, P., Deng, Z., Hu, W., & Zhu, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.15041 · Cited by 1
Detecting the hosts of bacteriophages using GCN-based semi-supervised learningPreprint
Shang, J., & Sun, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Self-citationpRSL: Interpretable Multi-label Stacking by Learning Probabilistic RulesPreprint
Kirchhof, M., Schmid, L., Reining, C., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.13850 · Cited by 1
Calibrated prediction in and out-of-domain for state-of-the-art saliency modeling.Preprint
Linardos, A., Kümmerer, M., Press, O., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Diversifying Dialog Generation via Adaptive Label SmoothingPreprint
Wang, Y., Zheng, Y., Jiang, Y., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.14556 · Cited by 1
Controllable Confidence-Based Image DenoisingPreprint
Owsianko, H., Cassayre, F., & Liang, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09311 · Cited by 1
Learning a Discriminant Latent Space with Neural Discriminant AnalysisPreprint
Ha, M. L., Franchi, G., Aldea, E., & Blanz, V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.06209 · Cited by 2
Petersen, E., Potdevin, Y., Mohammadi, E., Zidowitz, S., Breyer, S., Nowotka, D., Henn, S., Pechmann, L., Leucker, M., Rostalski, P., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Structured Stochastic Gradient MCMCPreprint
Alexos, A., Boyd, A., & Mandt, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.09028 · Cited by 2
Learning ULMFiT and Self-Distillation with Calibration for Medical Dialogue SystemPreprint
Ao, S., & Acharya, X. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.09625 · Cited by 1
Uncertainty-aware Cardinality Estimation by Neural Network Gaussian ProcessPreprint
Zhao, K., Yu, J. X., He, Z., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.08706 · Cited by 1
Active learning for online training in imbalanced data streams under cold start.Preprint
Barata, R., Leite, M., Pacheco, R., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Rao, A. (2021) · RIT Scholar Works (Rochester Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1
ALLWAS: Active Learning on Language models in WASserstein spacePreprint
Bastos, A., & Kaul, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01691 · Cited by 1
Learning from Uneven Training Data: Unlabeled, Single Label, and Multiple LabelsPreprint
Zhang, S., Gong, C., & Choi, E. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Deep Distributionally Robust Learning for Calibrated Uncertainties under Domain ShiftPreprint
Wang, H., Liu, A., Yu, Z., Yan, J., Yue, Y., & Anandkumar, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Natural Attribute-based Shift DetectionPreprint
Park, J.-H., Hong, J., Dua, R., Gwak, D., Li, Y., Choo, J., & Choi, E. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.09276 · Cited by 2
A Closer Look at Advantage-Filtered Behavioral Cloning in High-Noise DatasetsPreprint
Grigsby, J., & Qi, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.04698 · Cited by 1
Explaining generalization in deep learning: progress and fundamental limitsPreprint
Nagarajan, V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.08922 · Cited by 11
RBUE: A ReLU-Based Uncertainty Estimation Method of Deep Neural NetworksPreprint
Xia, Y., Zhang, J., Gong, Z., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.07197 · Cited by 1
Epistemic uncertainty estimation for object detection in open-set conditions
Miller, D. (2021) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.213588 · Cited by 1
Efficient and Generalizable Tuning Strategies for Stochastic Gradient MCMCPreprint
Coullon, J., South, L. F., & Nemeth, C. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1914735/v1 · Cited by 1
ExCon: Explanation-driven Supervised Contrastive Learning for Image ClassificationPreprint
Zhang, Z., Jang, J., Trabelsi, C., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.14271 · Cited by 1
Dense Uncertainty Estimation via an Ensemble-based Conditional Latent Variable ModelPreprint
Zhang, J., Dai, Y., Harandi, M. T., Zhong, Y., Barnes, N. M., & Hartley, R. I. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.11055 · Cited by 1
Artificial Consciousness as a Platform for Artificial General IntelligencePreprint
Kanai, R., Fujisawa, I., Tamai, S., Magata, A., & Yasumoto, M. (2019) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/e4jh2 · Cited by 1
Improving the Behaviour of Vision Transformers with Token-Consistent Stochastic LayersPreprint
Popović, N., Paudel, D. P., Probst, T., & Gool, L. V. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4137177 · Cited by 1
Towards Sustainable Aluminium Processing: Autonomous Quality Control Using Business AnalyticsPreprint
Matlala, K., Mishra, A. K., & Puthal, D. (2022) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202206.0033.v2 · Cited by 1
Hekler, A., Maron, R. C., Haggenmüller, S., Schmitt, M., Wies, C., Utikal, J. S., Meier, F. E., Hobelsberger, S., Gellrich, F. F., Sergon, M., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02800 · Cited by 1
Mapstone, C., Hunter, H. R., Brison, D. R., Handl, J., & Płusa, B. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.27.546684 · Cited by 1
Eminağa, O., Leyh‐Bannurah, S., Shariat, S. F., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3151281/v1 · Cited by 1
Deep Out-of-Distribution Uncertainty Quantification via Weight Entropy MaximizationPreprint
de Mathelin, A., Deheeger, F., Mougeot, M., & Vayatis, N. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15704 · Cited by 1
Cao, E. L. (2023) · ChemRxiv · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-85w9x
Self-supervised Pretraining of Vision Transformers for Earth Observation
Fuller, A. (2023) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15793 · Cited by 1
Trust in Machine Learning: The Influence of Calibrated Classification ModelsPreprint
Alarcon, G. M., Jessup, S. A., Willis, S. M., Johnson, D., Harris, K. N., Meyers, S., Noblick, J., & Bennette, W. D. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4663910 · Cited by 1
Dong, J., Jiang, Z., Pan, D., Yu, H., Guan, Q., Ding, B., & Gui, W. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4677185 · Cited by 1
Post-hoc feature-based out-of-distribution detection for real-world conditions
Wilson, S. (2024) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.246678 · Cited by 1
Uncertainty in Sentiment Analysis with LLMs using QCM (Quantiles of Correlation Matrices) - DistancePreprint
Lefort, B., Benhamou, E., Ohana, J., Guez, B., & Saltiel, D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4780192 · Cited by 1
Deep Bayesian Segmentation for Colon Polyps: Well-Calibrated Predictions in Medical ImagingPreprint
Hortua, H. J., & Ramos, D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4853023 · Cited by 1
Pohland, S., & Tomlin, C. J. (2024) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/8spgr0 · Cited by 1
Informed Injury Prediction in Elite Football: Decision Theory meets Machine LearningPreprint
Huth, M., Canal-Simón, B., Ferrer, E., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.04.23.25326218 · Cited by 1
Alhoshan, W., Ferrari, A., & Zhao, L. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5472929 · Cited by 2
CAPTURE: Disentangling Preference Drift from Memory Poisoning in Personalized LLM Agents
Hossain, S. M. A., Shayoni, R. K., & Morol, M. K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.02265 · Cited by 3
“We report no calibration column, since C APTURE ’s confidence is a distribution over six memory actions while the baselines expose a response likelihood, and a calibration error spanning both would not be comparable (Naeini et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017).”
LogRCA: Log-based Root Cause Analysis for Distributed Services
Wittkopp, T., Wiesner, P., & Kao, O. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.13599 · Cited by 16
“The FNN baseline has two hidden layers with 256 hidden units each and its score is based on the calibrated output probability of its output layer [6].”
BackgroundOptimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets
Huang, J., Farzaneh, A., & Simeone, O. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13660
“Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration [3], [4].”
ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality
Cosarinsky, M., Billot, R., Mansilla, L., Jimenez, G., Gaggión, N., Fu, G., Tirer, T., & Ferrante, E. (2025) · arXiv
“In addition, the method constructs its intervals from nonconformity scores based on the softmax scores [39], [40], which are known to su ff er from calibration issues [41], [42].”
On the Calibration of Nested Dichotomies for Large Multiclass TasksPreprint
Leathart, T., Frank, E., Pfahringer, B., & Holmes, G. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.02744 · Cited by 1
Learning Interpretable Models Using an Oracle.Preprint
Ghose, A., & Ravindran, B. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Constrained automatic tops picking using convolutional neural networks
Godwin, J., Roberts, J., & Panetti, E. (2019) · Second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy · doi:10.1190/segam2019-3215174.1
A Comparative Analysis of Practices in Training Deep Models for Fashion Attribute Detection
Amac, M. S., Erdem, A., & Erdem, E. (2019) · Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU) · doi:10.1109/siu.2019.8806278
Visual asymmetry in artificial neural networks
Shah, A. D. (2019)
Characterizing Sources of Uncertainty to Proxy Calibration and Disambiguate Annotator and Data Bias
Ghandeharioun, A., Eoff, B. D., Jou, B., & Picard, R. W. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw.2019.00517
Detecting unseen targets during inference in infrared imaging
d’Acremont, A., Baussard, A., Fablet, R., Quin, G., & Du, T. L. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Defense Applications · doi:10.1117/12.2533178
Model-based Interactive Semantic Parsing: A Unified Framework and A Text-to-SQL Case StudyPreprint
Yao, Z., Su, Y., Sun, H., & Yih, W.-T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.05389 · Cited by 3
Regularising Deep Networks with Deep Generative ModelsPreprint
Willetts, M., Camuto, A., Roberts, S., & Holmes, C. C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.11507
EM with Bias-Corrected Calibration is Hard-To-Beat at Label Shift AdaptationPreprint
Alexandari, A. M., Kundaje, A. B., & Shrikumar, A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University)
A Novel Unsupervised Post-Processing Calibration Method for DNNS with Robustness to Domain ShiftPreprint
Mozafari, A. S., Gomes, H. S., & Gagné, C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.11195
Why Should we Combine Training and Post-Training Methods for Out-of-Distribution Detection?Preprint
Papadopoulos, A.-A., Shaikh, N., & Rajati, M. R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.03133
Deep Bayesian Recurrent Neural Networks for Somatic Variant Calling in CancerPreprint
Dubourg-Felonneau, G., Darwish, O., Parsons, C., et al. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.04174
HMM-guided frame querying for bandwidth-constrained video searchPreprint
Chidambaram, B., McGill, M., & Perona, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.00057
Scalable Inference in Latent Gaussian Process Models
Wenzel, F. (2020) · doi:10.18452/20926
6D Camera Relocalization in Ambiguous Scenes via Continuous Multimodal InferencePreprint
Bui, M., Birdal, T., Deng, H., Albarqouni, S., Guibas, L. J., Ilić, S., & Navab, N. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.04807
Deep Learning Requires Explicit Regularization for Reliable Predictive ProbabilityPreprint
Joo, T., & Chung, U. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Generalization by Recognizing ConfusionPreprint
Chiu, D., Wang, F., & Kominers, S. D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.07737
Long-tail learning with class descriptorsPreprint
Samuel, D., Atzmon, Y., & Chechik, G. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Towards Robust Classification with Deep Generative ForestsPreprint
Correia, A. H. C., Peharz, R., & de Campos, C. P. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.05721
Visualizing Classification Structure of Large-Scale ClassifiersPreprint
Alsallakh, B., Yan, Z., Ghaffarzadegan, S., Dai, Z., & Ren, L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.06068
Economical ensembles with hypernetworks.Preprint
Sacramento, J., von Oswald, J., Kobayashi, S., Henning, C., & Grewe, B. F. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Morisot, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the Northern Lights Deep Learning Workshop · doi:10.7557/18.6286
Plotting the cumulative deviation of a subgroup from the full population as a function of score.Preprint
Tygert, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Privacy Preserving Recalibration under Domain ShiftPreprint
Luo, R., Zhao, S., Song, J., Kuck, J., Ermon, S., & Savarese, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.09643 · Cited by 1
Robustness and Overfitting Behavior of Implicit Background ModelsPreprint
Liu, S., Lehman, C., & AlRegib, G. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.09306
Evaluating Calibration and Robustness of Pedestrian Detectors
Cygert, S., & Czyżewski, A. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59000-0_8
BayesAdapter: Being Bayesian, Inexpensively and Robustly, via Bayesian Fine-tuningPreprint
Deng, Z., Yang, X. H., Zhang, H., Dong, Y., & Zhu, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Understanding Classifier Mistakes with Generative ModelsPreprint
Shao, L., Song, Y., & Ermon, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.02364
Know Where To Drop Your Weights: Towards Faster Uncertainty EstimationPreprint
Kamath, A., Gnaneshwar, D., & Valdenegro-Toro, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.14019
Monitoring Night Skies with Deep Learning
Galindo, Y., Cicco, M. D., Quiles, M. G., & Lorena, A. C. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63820-7_53
Regularization via Adaptive Pairwise Label SmoothingPreprint
Guo, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.01559
Amending Mistakes Post-hoc in Deep Networks by Leveraging Class Hierarchies
Karthik, S., Prabhu, A., Dokania, P. K., & Gandhi, V. (2021) · International Conference on Learning Representations
Attention-Based Prototypical LearningPreprint
Arık, S. Ö., & Pfister, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Jang, H., & Simeone, O. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.03280
Exploring the Potential of Sparse Coding for Machine Learning
Lundquist, S. Y. (2000) · doi:10.15760/etd.7484
ALT-MAS: A Data-Efficient Framework for Active Testing of Machine Learning AlgorithmsPreprint
Ha, H., Gupta, S., Rana, S., & Venkatesh, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.04999 · Cited by 3
Improving Uncertainty Calibration via Prior Augmented DataPreprint
Willette, J., Lee, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.10803
Interpretable COVID-19 Chest X-Ray Classification via Orthogonality ConstraintPreprint
Wang, E., Som, A., Shukla, A., Choi, H., & Turaga, P. K. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4000386
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
