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 3,301–3,400 of 3,447
Advancing low resource information extraction and dialogue system using data efficient methods
Ding, B. (2024) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/179560
Yet Another Discriminant Analysis (YADA): A Probabilistic Model for Machine Learning Applications
Field, R. V., Smith, M. R., Wuest, E., et al. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12213392
Deep Probability Segmentation: Are Segmentation Models Probability Estimators?
Fassio, S., Monaco, S., & Apiletti, D. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT) · doi:10.1109/aict61888.2024.10740436
MedHAI: Improved Framework for medical diagnosis using human experts
Gunika, & Sangal, A. L. (2024) · IEEE India Council International Subsections Conference (INDISCON) · doi:10.1109/indiscon62179.2024.10744362
PERFEX-I: confidence scores for image classification using decision trees
Eker, T. A., Adhikari, A., & van Rooij, S. B. (2024) · SPIE Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Security and Defence Applications · doi:10.1117/12.3049363
Autonomous novel class discovery for vision-based recognition in non-interactive environments
Zhang, X., Liu, F., Cheng, X., et al. (2024) · Cognitive Robotics · doi:10.1016/j.cogr.2024.10.002
Enhancing Vehicle Identification in Challenging Conditions Through Fine-Grained Classification
Santos, E. A. P., Lima, G. E., Laroca, R., Nascimento, E., & Menotti, D. (2024) · SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI) · doi:10.5753/sibgrapi.est.2024.31657 · Cited by 1
Improving Model Robustness With Frequency Component Modification and Mixing
Hwang, H., Kim, S.-H., Lee, K., & Lee, H.-J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3510923
Multi-Scale Self-Supervised Consistency Training for Trustworthy Medical Imaging Classification
Han, B., Moran, C., Yang, J. Y., Lee, Y., Cao, Z., & Liang, G. (2024) · Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc53108.2024.10782322
Nishino, T., Kato, K., Tara, S., Hayashi, D., Seki, T., Takiguchi, T., Kubota, Y., Yamamoto, T., Maruyama, M., Kodani, E., et al. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.12.17.24319186 · Cited by 1
Adaptive Splitting of Reusable Temporal Monitors for Rare Traffic Violations
Innes, C., & Ramamoorthy, S. (2024) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros58592.2024.10802747
Estimating Perceptual Uncertainty to Predict Robust Motion Plans
Gupta, A., Zhang, M. M., & Gupta, S. (2024) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros58592.2024.10802308
Optimizing Uncertainty Estimation on Scientific Visualizations Using Learning Models
Almeida, C. J., Guerrero-Pantoja, D., Pautsch, E., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1109/scw63240.2024.00058
Feature Extraction by Image Transformations for Cell Image Classification
Röhrl, S., Steinmetz, F., Paukner, P., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10821741
Improving Medical Imaging Model Calibration through Probabilistic Embedding
Han, B., Masupalli, Y. P., Xing, X., & Liang, G. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825661
Banik, P., Li, L., Dong, X., & Qian, L. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825809
Shen, C. N., Ma, Q., Wang, K., & He, G. (2024) · CAA International Conference on Vehicular Control and Intelligence (CVCI) · doi:10.1109/cvci63518.2024.10830263
DPCA: Dynamic Probability Calibration Algorithm in LMaaS
Deng, Z., Chen, C. L. P., & Zhang, T. (2024) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831099
Re-Calibrating Network by Refining Initial Features Through Generative Gradient Regularization
Reza, N., & Jung, H. Y. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3534216
Linville, L. M., Garcia, J. A., & Vieceli, R. E. (2025) · Seismological Research Letters · doi:10.1785/0220240305 · Cited by 1
Interplay between Bayesian Neural Networks and Deep Learning: A SurveyPreprint
Chen, Y., Yu, S. S., Li, Z., Eshraghian, J. K., & Lim, C. P. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5100162
Goo, D., & Kim, S. T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5123790
Bayesian Approach for Uncertainty Quantification of Neural Networks-Based Crack Diagnostics
Rathnakumar, R., Liu, Y., & Pang, Y. (2025) · AIAA SciTech Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2025-1959
Optimizing Speech Recognition Models with Effective Confidence Calibrations
Xu, T., & Li, J. (2024) · China Automation Congress (CAC) · doi:10.1109/cac63892.2024.10865370
Matching Confidences and Softened Target Occurrences for Calibration
Kugathasan, V., Zhou, H., Izzo, Z., Kuruppu, G., Baliah, S., & Khan, M. H. (2024) · International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA) · doi:10.1109/dicta63115.2024.00028
Uncertainty-Aware Cross-Modality Fusion for Visible-Infrared Object Detection
Zhao, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA) · doi:10.1109/dicta63115.2024.00029
Fast, trusted semantic segmentation of LiDAR point clouds with evidential fusion
Zhang, F., Wang, J., Fan, W., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1117/12.3057902
Conformal prediction in multi-user settings: an evaluation
Garcia-Ceja, E., García‐Bañuelos, L., & Jourdan, N. (2025) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-025-09425-5
Crumrine, G., Masupalli, Y. P., & Liang, G. (2025) · IEEE Pulse · doi:10.1109/mpuls.2025.3526485
Multimodal Knowledge Graph Completion Model Based on Modal Hierarchical Fusion
Zhang, S., Huang, H., Lin, X., et al. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2376-1_28
Towards Multi-Class Open-Set Recognition by Use of Lower Dimensional Latent Space Embeddings
Warner, J. G., & Patel, V. N. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla61862.2024.00283
Capturing Uncertainty over Time for Spiking Neural Networks by Exploiting Conformal Prediction Sets
Scholz, D., Emonds, O., Kreutz, F., Gerhards, P., Huang, J., Knobloch, K., Knoll, A., & Mayr, C. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla61862.2024.00021
Frequency-Space Margin Perception for Open Set Knowledge Distillation
Liu, L., Jing, L., Wang, R., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10887900
GPPT: Gaussian Process-infused Prompt Tuning for Vision-language Models
Si, S., Sun, H., & Gu, J.-W. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889650
Improving Robustness of Post-hoc Calibration Against Common Corruptions By Learnable Augmentation
Zhang, J. J., Hu, M., Luo, Z., Luo, W., Geng, G., & Bai, X. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888381
Bayesian Language Model Adaptation for Personalized Speech Recognition
Lee, M.-H., Mo, J.-H., Kang, J.-H., Son, J.-Y., & Chang, J. (2025) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2025.3556787
Improving Uncertainty Estimation with Confidence-Aware Training Data
Korchagin, S. A., Zaychenkova, E., Khalin, A., Yugay, A., Zaytsev, A., & Ershov, E. I. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00776 · Cited by 1
CRAFT: Class Ranking Aware Fine-Tuning for Enhanced Out-of-Distribution Detection
Karunanayake, N., Seneviratne, S., & Chawla, S. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00405
Multi-task Learning of Classification and Generation for Set-structured Data
Sato, F., Hayashi, H., & Nagahara, H. (2025) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00656
Measuring Error Alignment for Decision-Making Systems
Xu, B., Bikakis, A., Onah, D. F. O., Vlachidis, A., & Dickens, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i26.34988
Generalized Zero-Shot Learning for Point Cloud Segmentation with Evidence-Based Dynamic Calibration
Kim, H., Kang, B., & Lee, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i4.32446
A Decade of Sea Ice Concentration Retrievals from Sentinel-1Preprint
Wulf, T., Buus-Hinkler, J., Singha, S., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5222853
Stochastic Explicit Calibration Algorithm for Survival Models
Park, J., Kang, S., & Kim, G. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3566156
Liu, X., Zhang, L., Huang, W., Xiong, D., Fu, Z., Wu, H., & Song, A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3566808
Disease Prediction and Medication Recommendation Using Machine Learning
Sharma, H. (2025) · INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · doi:10.55041/ijsrem46458
Pugh, S., Ruchkin, I., Weimer, J. E., & Lee, I. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1145/3734695 · Cited by 1
Dataset Distillation with Probabilistic Latent FeaturesPreprint
Li, Z., Cechnicka, S., Ouyang, C., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5248880
Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating Model Reliability for Target Radar Image Classification Using SHAP
Giusti, E., Ghio, S., Meucci, G., et al. (2024) · International Radar Conference (RADAR) · doi:10.1109/radar58436.2024.10994076
Reliable Probabilistic Human Trajectory Prediction for Autonomous Applications
Hetzel, M., Reichert, H., Doll, K., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91585-7_9
QL-PGD: An efficient defense against membership inference attack
Pham, T. D., Nguyen, B. D., Mai, S. T., & Ta, V. C. (2025) · Journal of Information Security and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2025.104095
GOMFuNet: A Geometric Orthogonal Multimodal Fusion Network for Enhanced Prediction Reliability
Guo, Y., & Zhong, R. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13111791
McColgan, N., & Calliess, J.-P. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5280398
A probabilistic approach for building disease phenotypes across electronic health records
Vidmar, D., Freitas, J. D., Thompson, W., Pfeifer, J. M., Fornwalt, B. K., Zimmerman, N., Miotto, R., & Chen, R. (2025) · BioData Mining · doi:10.1186/s13040-025-00454-9
Weakly supervised multiple-instance active learning for tooth-marked tongue recognition
Deng, F., Li, S., Yang, Z., & Wu, Z. P. (2025) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2025.1598850 · Cited by 1
ESCAN: Efficient GPU sharing for cascade neural network inference
Wang, J., Shi, Y., Chen, Z., & Wen, M. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107703
Breaking the T^(2/3) Barrier for Sequential Calibration
Dagan, Y., Daskalakis, C., Fishelson, M., Golowich, N., Kleinberg, R., & Okoroafor, P. (2025) · ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) · doi:10.1145/3717823.3718178
Sentinel-2 Masking CNNs Trained on Physics-Supervised Labels
Padilla-Zepeda, E., Alonso, K., Reyes, R. D. L., et al. (2025) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3581058
Nieves, J., Serena-Barriuso, A., & Elejoste-Rementeria, G. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15136991
Gili, J. A. S., & Lagrazon, P. G. G. (2025) · International Conference on Research Methodologies in Knowledge Management, Artificial Intelligence and Telecommunication Engineering (RMKMATE) · doi:10.1109/rmkmate64874.2025.11042650
Data-driven approach to mid-latitude coherent scatter radar data classification
Berngardt, O. I. (2025) · Solnechno-Zemnaya Fizika · doi:10.12737/szf-112202503
Martinsen, I., Sørensen, S. A., Ortega, S., Godtliebsen, F., Tejedor, M. C.-M., & Myrvoll-Nilsen, E. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence in Geosciences · doi:10.1016/j.aiig.2025.100145
Building an Ai-Supported Public Discourse Model
Misnikov, Y., & Samoilava, V. (2025) · International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment · doi:10.1109/icedeg65568.2025.11081665
High-resolution biophysical parameter estimation at scale with uncertainties
Martínez-Ferrer, L., Moreno‐Martínez, Á., Muñoz-Marı́, J., et al. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-29991-9.00002-1
Cali-rPPG: A Unified Uncertainty-Aware Framework for Remote Photoplethysmography
Shi, T., Sun, Y., Ye, S., & Wang, T. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0033-8_18
Self-citationUncertainty Quantification for Large-Scale Deep Neural Networks via Post-StoNet Modeling
Sun, Y., & Liang, F. (2025) · Statistica Sinica · doi:10.5705/ss.202024.0294
Self-citationExplainability of Language Models (XAI and LLM)
Cecco, A. D., & Gianfagna, L. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92229-9_8
Machine-learned trends in mirror configurations in the large plasma device
Travis, P., Bortnik, J., & Carter, T. A. (2025) · Physics of Plasmas · doi:10.1063/5.0270755
Learning Explicit Uncertainty Estimation in Cross Modality Localization
Schütte, S., & Bertram, T. (2025) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv64158.2025.11097809
Calibrating the Full Predictive Class Distribution of 3D Object Detectors for Autonomous Driving
Schröder, C., Schlüter, M.-R., & Lienkamp, M. (2025) · IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium · doi:10.1109/iv64158.2025.11097526
Zhang, X., Shi, H., Li, X., et al. (2026) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2026.132268
Bayesian Federated Learning for Continual Training
Milasheuski, U., Barbieri, L., Kianoush, S., Nicoli, M., & Savazzi, S. (2025) · IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP) · doi:10.1109/ssp64130.2025.11073336
Hua, Z., Wu, K., Li, X., & Shu, X. J. (2025) · International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste64638.2025.11092250
Evi-SSUNet: A multi-task network for reliable surgical scene understanding in X-ray images
Ma, X., Lin, H.-S., Liu, S., Xie, X., Zhou, X.-H., Hou, Z., Qu, X., Guan, S., Ming, W., & Han, W. (2025) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2025.108395 · Cited by 1
N2C2: Nearest Neighbor Enhanced Confidence Calibration for Cross-Lingual In-Context Learning
He, J., Yu, S., Gutiérrez-Basulto, V., & Pan, J. Z. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.07.121
Kasuga, T., Jin, G., Yuasa, A., Vazhenina, D., & Watanabe, N. (2025) · International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICCAI) · doi:10.1109/iccai66501.2025.00010
Stateless distributed Stein variational gradient descent method for Bayesian federated learning
Li, G., Gan, J., Wang, C., & Peng, S. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131198
Evaluating Log-Likelihood for Confidence Estimation in LLM-Based Multiple-Choice Question Answering
Boseak, C. (2025) · Innovative Journal of Applied Science · doi:10.70844/ijas.2025.2.29
MAAG: A Multi-Attention Architecture for Generalizable Multi-Target Adversarial Attacks
Ou, D., Lu, J., Hua, C., Zhou, S., Zeng, Y., He, Y., & Tian, J. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15189915
A Computer Vision Pipeline to Augment Touchscreen Tasks for Chimpanzees
Lubetkin, W., Martin, C. F., Walker, I., Peacock, J., & Eller, R. J. (2025) · International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI) · doi:10.1145/3768539.3768558
Wynne, J. H., Azbijari, N., Thurber, A. R., & David, M. M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.17.695047
Robustness over complexity: decision-level fusion for fine-grained volcanic lithology identification
Jin, X., Yu, T., Wang, P., Nie, M., & Lu, S. (2025) · Earth Science Informatics · doi:10.1007/s12145-025-02060-z · Cited by 1
Early-Warning Systems from Clinical Time-Series using Temporal Contrastive LearningPreprint
Barman, A., Sunny, S. D., Shomo, M. Z., Antara, R., Akter, R., & Shafique, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8531226/v1
CATE: Consensus-aware calibration for test-time prompt tuning via energy anchoring
Wang, M., Jia, M., Yang, H., Cheng, Q., & Huang, J. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.115517
Sanap, H. (2026) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-026-12521-1
Right-to-be-Forgotten by Design in Adapter-Tuned Transformers
Ranade, D., & Jaiswal, R. R. (2026) · Conference on Human Centred Artificial Intelligence - Education and Practice (HCAIep) · doi:10.1145/3777490.3777507
Arethiya, N., Krammer, L., David, J. A., Bakshi, V., Basuchoudhary, A., Bhuiyan, U., Sen, S., Mazumder, R., & McNeely, P. M. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.03.04.26347604
Lighittha, P. R., Prithivraj, S., Sundara Srivathsan, M., et al. (2026) · SPIE Medical Imaging: Clinical and Biomedical Imaging · doi:10.1117/12.3088156
Li, Q., & Chen, Y. (2026) · Lecture notes in civil engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-5495-9_8
Tan, B., Niu, Y., & He, Z. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c03023
Rao, S. S., Aruna, C. V., Manikanta, B. V., & MOHAMMED, R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9418453/v1
Alzubaidi, A. H., Al-Shuwaili, A., & Al-Bayaty, A. (2026) · International Conference on Computing and Emerging Sciences · doi:10.1145/3797491.3797535
Machine Learning for Cybersecurity: Techniques, Tools, and Real-World Applications
Zhang, Y., Yang, J., & Yue, S. (2026) · Cureus Journal of Computer Science. · doi:10.7759/s44389-025-00059-7
Risk-Aware Medical Question Answering as a Reliability-Critical Decision Process
Luo, Y., & Li, Y. (2026) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3805622.3810784
A six-level clinical autonomy framework for artificial intelligence in dentistry
Shujaat, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Oral Health · doi:10.3389/froh.2026.1836492
Kim, H., Lee, J., Choi, M., Lee, J., & Cho, J. (2026) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-22500-9_24
Lien, S. K., & Rajasekharan, J. (2026) · Energy Informatics · doi:10.1186/s42162-026-00681-2
Uncertainty-aware music genre classification using evidential deep learning
Sidharrth, V., Jayan, S., & Alataş, B. (2026) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.3948
Automated PET tracer classification in multi-site, multi-cohort studies using deep learning
Gebre, R. K., Reid, R. I., Senjem, M. L., Gunter, J. L., Lowe, V. J., Kantarci, K., Petersen, R. C., Graff‐Radford, J., Jack, C. R., Vemuri, P., et al. (2026) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-026-01486-w
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
