Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibration
Open accessAbstract
Class probabilities predicted by most multiclass classifiers are uncalibrated, often tending towards over-confidence. With neural networks, calibration can be improved by temperature scaling, a method to learn a single corrective multiplicative factor for inputs to the last softmax layer. On non-neural models the existing methods apply binary calibration in a pairwise or one-vs-rest fashion. We propose a natively multiclass calibration method applicable to classifiers from any model class, derived from Dirichlet distributions and generalising the beta calibration method from binary classification. It is easily implemented with neural nets since it is equivalent to log-transforming the uncalibrated probabilities, followed by one linear layer and softmax. Experiments demonstrate improved probabilistic predictions according to multiple measures (confidence-ECE, classwise-ECE, log-loss, Brier score) across a wide range of datasets and classifiers. Parameters of the learned Dirichlet calibration map provide insights to the biases in the uncalibrated model.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Dirichlet calibration is the multi-class extension of Beta calibration.
“Dirichlet calibration is the multi-class extension of Beta calibration (Kull et al., 2019).”
From Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Kull et al., 2019
Cites
Zagoruyko, S., & Komodakis, N. (2016) · Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2016 · doi:10.5244/c.30.87 · Cited by 7,244 · see citing works
On calibration of modern neural networks
Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.04599 · Cited by 3,435 · see citing works
Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates
Zadrozny, B., & Elkan, C. (2002) · Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/775047.775151 · Cited by 1,280 · see citing works
The Comparison and Evaluation of Forecasters
DeGroot, M. H., & Fienberg, S. E. (1983) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2987588 · Cited by 604 · see citing works
Reliability of Subjective Probability Forecasts of Precipitation and Temperature
Murphy, A. H., & Winkler, R. L. (1977) · Applied Statistics · doi:10.2307/2346866 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Binary Classifier Calibration Using an Ensemble of Near Isotonic Regression Models
Naeini, M. P., & Cooper, G. F. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · doi:10.1109/icdm.2016.0047 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2 · cited 1×
“Meteorologists were among the first to think about calibration, with [3] introducing an evaluation measure for probabilistic forecasts, which we now call Brier score; [21] proposing reliability diagrams, which allow us”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Classifier calibration: a survey on how to assess and improve predicted class probabilities
Silva Filho, T., Song, H., Perello-Nieto, M., Santos-Rodriguez, R., Kull, M., & Flach, P. (2023) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06336-7 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Self-citationMix-n-match: Ensemble and compositional methods for uncertainty calibration in deep learning
Zhang, J., Kailkhura, B., & Han, Y.-J. (2020) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.11390.13125 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kull, M., Perello-Nieto, M., Kängsepp, M., Filho, T. S., Song, H., & Flach, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Tartu (EE)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1910.12656
- OpenAlex
- W2981528437
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Alan Turing Institute (EP/N510129/1., N510129)
- Eesti Teadusagentuur (PUT1458)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (N510129, EP/R005273/1, EP/N510129/, EP/N510129/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- probability calibration, temperature scaling, overconfidence, expected calibration error, neural network classifier
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.
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