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 3,201–3,300 of 3,447
LROCNet: Detecting Impact Ejecta and Older Craters on the Lunar SurfacePreprint
Dunkel, E. R., Lu, S., Grimes, K., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1002/essoar.10512917.1
Lazy Net: Lazy Entry Neural Networks for Accelerated and Efficient Inference
Park, J., Kim, D., & Moon, Y.-H. (2022) · International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC) · doi:10.1109/ictc55196.2022.9953031
Where Do Humans Build Levees? A Case Study on the Contiguous United States
Ikegawa, M., Hascoet, T., Pellet, V., Watanabe, M., Zhou, X., Tanaka, Y., Takiguchi, T., & Yamazaki, D. (2022) · IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) · doi:10.1109/igarss46834.2022.9884228
Introducing students to out-of-distribution detection with deep neural networks
Šuch, O., Fabricius, R., & Tarábek, P. (2022) · International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) · doi:10.1109/iceta57911.2022.9974603
Interpolation-aware models for train-test consistency in mixup
Hu, Y., Han, C., & Guo, T. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Science and Communication Technology (ICCSCT) · doi:10.1117/12.2661854
Uncertainty-based Model Acceleration for Cancer Classification in Whole-Slide Images
Gao, Z., Mao, A., Wu, J., Li, Y., Wang, C., Ding, C., Gong, T., & Li, C. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm55620.2022.9995601
Improved Imagery Throughput via Cascaded Uncertainty Pruning on U-Net++
Li, M., Wang, Z., & Blaschko, M. B. (2023) · Proceedings of the Northern Lights Deep Learning Workshop · doi:10.7557/18.6813
Phantom of Benchmark Dataset: Resolving Label Ambiguity Problem on Image Recognition in the Wild
Chung, H., Park, K. H., Seo, T., & Cho, S. (2023) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw58289.2023.00049
Robust Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stragglers via Consensus Monte Carlo
Chittoor, H. H. S., & Simeone, O. (2022) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom48099.2022.10001070
Calibrating AI Models for Few-Shot Demodulation via Conformal PredictionPreprint
Cohen, K. M., Park, S., Simeone, O., et al. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.04621
RoI Uncertainty for RGB-Thermal Image Segmentation
Hu, J., Gu, X., Wu, Y., & Gu, X. (2022) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Machine Intelligence (MLMI) · doi:10.1145/3568199.3568220
Reducing classifier overconfidence against adversaries through graph algorithms
Teixeira, L. V., Jalaian, B. A., & Ribeiro, B. (2023) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06307-y
Exploring the Interplay of Pretraining, Architecture, and Adaptation in Foundation ModelsPreprint
Srivastava, M. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/6tzpn
Normalizing Flow based Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Regression AnalysisPreprint
Zhang, B., Sui, W., Huang, Z., & Li, M. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22324951
Do Minority Views in Perceptual Evaluations Affect Confidence of Speech Emotion Classifiers?
Chou, H.-C. (2022) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW) · doi:10.1109/aciiw57231.2022.10085994
Dehghani, N., Scheeve, T., Boers, T. G. W., van der Zander, Q. E. W., Thijssen, A., Schreuder, R.-M., Masclee, A., Schoon, E. J., van der Sommen, F., & de With, P. H. N. (2023) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis · doi:10.1117/12.2653848
Efficient Uncertainty Estimation with Gaussian Process for Reliable Dialog Response Retrieval
Ye, T., Li, Z., Wang, J., Cheng, N., & Xiao, J. J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10096694 · Cited by 1
Can We Teach Functions to an Artificial Intelligence by Just Showing It Enough “Ground Truth”?
Courtois, A., Ehret, T., Arias, P., & Morel, J. (2022) · Lecture notes in mathematics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-12244-6_31
Distributional Gaussian Processes Layers for Out-of-Distribution Detection
Popescu, S. G., Sharp, D. J., Cole, J. H., Kamnitsas, K., & Glocker, B. (2022) · The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2022-a6bf · Cited by 1
On Performance and Calibration of Natural Gradient Langevin Dynamics
Robbani, H. A., Bustamam, A., Adnan, R., & Ahmad, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3279124
Zander, T., Pan, Z., Birnstill, P., et al. (2023) · tm - Technisches Messen · doi:10.1515/teme-2023-0010
Natural robustness of machine learning in the open world
Wei, H. (2023) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/166625
Schmidt, C., & Overhoff, H. M. (2023) · Informatik aktuell · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-41657-7_24
UnGoML: Automated Classification of unsafe Usages in Go
Wickert, A.-K., Damke, C., Baumgärtner, L., et al. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr59073.2023.00050
Efficient probability intervals for classification using inductive venn predictors
Boursinos, D., & Koutsoukos, X. (2023) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2023.109734
Exploring Preferential Label Smoothing for Neural Network-based Classifiers
Goyal, P., Huang, C., Trabelsi, A., et al. (2023) · doi:10.21428/594757db.6ee355e7
Inspection in high-mix and high-throughput handling with skeptical and incremental learningPreprint
Schimanek, R., Bilge, P., & Dietrich, F. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23284049.v1
Adaptive Mixing of Auxiliary Losses in Supervised Learning
Sivasubramanian, D., Maheshwari, A., Prathosh, A. P., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i8.26176
Estimating Model Uncertainty in Fluorine-19 MRI Using Stochastic GradientPreprint
Javanbakhat, M., Starke, L., Waiczies, S., & Lippert, C. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4492958
Revisiting Pathologies of Neural Models under Input Reduction
Kruengkrai, C., & Yamagishi, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.730
Making Pre-trained Language Models both Task-solvers and Self-calibrators
Chen, Y., Wang, X., & Ji, H. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.624
Local Temperature Beam Search: Avoid Neural Text DeGeneration via Enhanced Calibration
Lee, D., Kim, G., Han, J., Hong, T., Kim, Y.-R., Choi, S. J., & Zhang, N. L. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.628
Hard Gate Knowledge Distillation - Leverage Calibration for Robust and Reliable Language Model
Lee, D., Tian, Z., Zhao, Y., Cheung, K. C., & Zhang, N. L. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.665 · Cited by 2
Anomaly Detection in the Molecular Structure of Gallium Arsenide Using Convolutional Neural Networks
Roche, T., Wood, A., Cho, P., et al. (2023) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math11153428
Improved segmentation of damages on high-resolution coating images using CNN-based ensemble learning
Hedrich, K., Hinz, L., & Reithmeier, E. (2023) · doi:10.1117/12.2673821
Sitaru, S., Oueslati, T., Schielein, M. C., Weis, J., Kaczmarczyk, R., Rueckert, D., Biedermann, T., & Zink, A. (2023) · JDDG Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft · doi:10.1111/ddg.15113_g
Pointwise Sliced Mutual Information for Neural Network Explainability
Wongso, S., Ghosh, R., & Motani, M. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) · doi:10.1109/isit54713.2023.10207010
Li, Z., & Zhang, T. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202308.2081.v1
Frenkel, L., & Goldberger, J. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi53787.2023.10230543
Token-Consistent Dropout For Calibrated Vision Transformers
Popović, N., Paudel, D. P., Probst, T., et al. (2023) · Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip49359.2023.10222084
Quantifying Deep Learning Model Uncertainty in Conformal PredictionPreprint
Karimi, H., & Samavi, R. (2023) · doi:10.32920/24132882
Deschemps, A., Grégoire, E., Martinez, J. S., Vaurijoux, A., Fernandez, P., Dugué, D., Bobyk, L., Valente, M., Gruel, G., Moebel, E., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.09.11.557124
Latency-Critical Inference Serving for Deep Learning
Nigade, V. (2023) · doi:10.5463/thesis.308
Exploiting Epistemic Uncertainty at Inference Time for Early-Exit Power Saving
Dymond, J., Stein, S., & Gunn, S. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230323
RF safety assessment in ultra-high field MRI
Meliadò, E. F. (2023) · doi:10.33540/1928
Adaptive Ddos Response Policy by Reinforcement Learning with an Anomality Reward FunctionPreprint
Sakong, W., & Kim, W. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4605933
Data Uncertainty Learning in Breast Cancer Recognition
Zhao, K., Luo, T., Chen, K., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Data-driven Optimization of Complex Systems (DOCS) · doi:10.1109/docs60977.2023.10294729
Uncertainty in Semi-Supervised Audio Classification – A Novel Extension for FixMatch
Grollmisch, S., Cano, E., Lukashevich, H., et al. (2023) · European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) · doi:10.23919/eusipco58844.2023.10289789
Confidence Preservation Property in Knowledge Distillation Abstractions
Vengertsev, D., & Sherman, E. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47994-6_5
Lee, S. I., Jeong, S., & Kim, H. (2023) · International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS) · doi:10.23919/iccas59377.2023.10316944
Life course analysis using deep learning approaches: a simulation studyPreprint
Coupland, H., Scheidwasser, N., Katsiferis, A., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3601343/v1
Humbert‐Vidan, L., Hansen, C. R., Patel, V., et al. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.12.04.23299221
Gatekeeper to save COGS and improve efficiency of Text Prediction
Tiwari, N., Kola, S., Milunovic, M., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.5
Selective Labeling: How to Radically Lower Data-Labeling Costs for Document Extraction Models
Zhou, Y., Wendt, J. B., Potti, N., Xie, J., & Tata, S. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.233
Assessing the Fidelity of Explanations with Global Sensitivity Analysis
Smith, M. R., Acquesta, E., Smutz, C., Rushdi, A., & Moss, B. (2023) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.133 · Cited by 1
Certifiably Robust Out-Of-Distribution Detection Based on Prediction Uncertainy Weighting
Liu, Y., Dou, Q., Tang, H., et al. (2023) · International Annual Conference on Complex Systems and Intelligent Science (CSIS-IAC) · doi:10.1109/csis-iac60628.2023.10363868
A Saliency-based Clustering Framework for Identifying Aberrant Predictions
Montserrat, A. T., Loftus, A., & Daihes, Y. (2023) · LatinX in AI at Neural Information Processing Systems Conference (LXAI) · doi:10.52591/lxai202312109
Herds of Dumb Models: Deriving Assured Classification From Unbiased Weak Models
McGuire, N., Allende, I., & Kreidl, M. (2023) · International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS) · doi:10.1109/icsrs59833.2023.10381337
Wu, J., Dang, T., Sethu, V., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) · doi:10.1109/acii59096.2023.10388210
Normalizing Flow Based Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Regression AnalysisPreprint
Zhang, B., Sui, W., Huang, Z., Qi, M., & Li, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4698811
NASEREX: Optimizing Early Exits via AutoML for Scalable Efficient Inference in Big Image Streams
Kapoor, A. S., Soans, R. E., Dixit, S., Pradeep, N. S., Singh, B., & Das, M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata59044.2023.10386502
Decoupled Multi-Class Adaptive Calibration Model for Long-Tailed Recognition
Guo, J., Wu, Z., Ji, Y., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Network Intelligence and Digital Content (IC-NIDC) · doi:10.1109/ic-nidc59918.2023.10390803
Adversarial Anomaly Detection using Gaussian Priors and Nonlinear Anomaly Scores
Lüer, F., Weber, T., Dolgich, M., et al. (2023) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw60847.2023.00078
Calibration of Deep Learning Classification Models in fNIRSPreprint
Cao, Z., & Luo, Z. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.170861971.16301364/v1
Wang, J., Chen, J., & Su, B. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10446995
On Estimating Link Prediction Uncertainty Using Stochastic Centering
Trivedi, P., Koutra, D., & Thiagarajan, J. J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10445967
Mitigation of Over-Confidence in Scale-Adjusted Training for Early-Exit Networks
Jeon, J.-Y., Nguyen, X. T., & Lee, H. (2024) · International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC) · doi:10.1109/iceic61013.2024.10457149
Application of Deep Learning in Biological Big Data Analysis
Shukla, R., Yadav, A. K., & Singh, T. R. (2023) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3026-5.ch011
Kanwal, N., Khoraminia, F., Kiraz, U., Mosquera‐Zamudio, A., Monteagudo, C. C., Janssen, E. A. M., Zuiverloon, T. C. M., Rong, C., & Engan, K. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4092609/v1 · Cited by 1
Chen, Y., Hu, P., Yuan, Z., Peng, D., & Wang, X. (2024) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2024.120532 · Cited by 1
RetractedCombining the Predictions of Out-of-Domain Classifiers Using Etcetera Abduction
Gordon, A. S., & Feng, A. (2024) · Conference on Information Sciences and Systems · doi:10.1109/ciss59072.2024.10480194
Methods for non-intrusive out-of-distribution images detection
Vlasova, A. V., Shkanaev, A. Y., & Sholomov, D. L. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Vision · doi:10.1117/12.3023403
Lightweight Delivery Detection on Doorbell Cameras
Khorramshahi, P., Wu, Z., Wang, T., et al. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) · doi:10.1109/wacv57701.2024.00681
Probabilistic calibration of a binary classifier, applied to detecting sleeping state in a car drivePreprint
Giudici, P., & Villone, G. (2024) · doi:10.22541/au.171411260.05271896/v1
Vaerenberg, R., Marx, D., Hosseinli, S. A., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management · doi:10.36001/ijphm.2024.v15i1.3808
Geometric Insights into Focal Loss: Reducing Curvature for Enhanced Model CalibrationPreprint
Kimura, M., & Naganuma, H. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4818939
Krause, C., Pang, I., & Shih, D. (2024) · doi:10.21468/scipost.report.8382
Krause, C., Pang, I., & Shih, D. (2024) · doi:10.21468/scipost.report.8526
Image classification with symbolic hints using limited resources
Jørgensen, M. G., Tětková, L., & Hansen, L. K. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301360
Benchmarking and end-to-end considerations for GeoAI-enabled decision-making
Yang, H. L., Dias, P. A., Arndt, J., Wohlgemuth, J., Potnis, A. V., & Lunga, D. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-44-319077-3.00011-0
Variable-based Probablistic Calibration with Binary OutcomePreprint
Seto, H., Kitora, S., Oyama, A., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4477779/v1
Triaffine Decoder for span-based Chinese Named Entity RecognitionPreprint
Liu, D., Li, Q., Peng, Z., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4460073/v1
Efficient, Calibrated, and Interpretable Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning ClassificationPreprint
Hollis, A., Pazdernik, K., Wilson, A. G., & Smith, R. C. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4463658/v1
Demonstrating confidence in RF machine learning systems
Judah, M., & Kuzdeba, S. (2024) · Assurance and Security for AI-enabled Systems · doi:10.1117/12.3014104
Calibrated confidences and prediction sets for open set SAR ATR
Chakravarthy, S., Ashby, M., & Zelnio, E. G. (2024) · Algorithms for synthetic aperture radar imagery. Conference · doi:10.1117/12.3021865
DeepNeo: Deep Learning for neointimal tissue characterization using optical coherence tomographyPreprint
Koch, V., Holmberg, O., Blum, E., et al. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.06.14.23300272
Beyond Thresholds: A General Approach to Sensor Selection for Practical Deep Learning-based HAR
Cooper, G., & Marculescu, R. (2024) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI) · doi:10.1109/iotdi61053.2024.00005
Uncertainty Estimation in Click-Through Rate Prediction with Deep Neural Gaussian Process
Fan, R., Ye, Y., Zhang, L., Liu, C., Zhang, K., & Chan, W. K. (2024) · IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC) · doi:10.1109/imcec59810.2024.10575061
Bui-Quoc, B., Nguyen-Gia, K., Tran-Anh, D., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4893727
Context-compensated Probabilistic Pedestrian Detection
Willems, T., Aelterman, J., & Hamme, D. V. (2024) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv55156.2024.10588844
AIDEN - Artificial Intelligence and Digital Entity Network
Kawad, M. V., Makwana, S. H., & Kirubanantham, P. (2024) · International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Applied Informatics (ACCAI) · doi:10.1109/accai61061.2024.10601729
Assured Resilience in Autonomous Systems – Machine Learning Methods for Reliable Perception
Weiß, G., Gansloser, J., Schwaiger, A., et al. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64832-8_9
A Joint Training and Confidence Calibration Procedure That is Robust to Label Noise
Penso, C., & Goldberger, J. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi56570.2024.10635160
Andrade, F. S. P., Hurtado, J., & Gattass, M. (2024) · IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2024.3453173
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
