PreprintCited by 16Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Estimating Model Performance under Domain Shifts with Class-Specific Confidence Scores

Open access
Li, Zeju, Kamnitsas, Konstantinos, Islam, Mobarakol, Chen, Chen, Glocker, Ben·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Machine learning models are typically deployed in a test setting that differs from the training setting, potentially leading to decreased model performance because of domain shift. If we could estimate the performance that a pre-trained model would achieve on data from a specific deployment setting, for example a certain clinic, we could judge whether the model could safely be deployed or if its performance degrades unacceptably on the specific data. Existing approaches estimate this based on the confidence of predictions made on unlabeled test data from the deployment's domain. We find existing methods struggle with data that present class imbalance, because the methods used to calibrate confidence do not account for bias induced by class imbalance, consequently failing to estimate class-wise accuracy. Here, we introduce class-wise calibration within the framework of performance estimation for imbalanced datasets. Specifically, we derive class-specific modifications of state-of-the-art confidence-based model evaluation methods including temperature scaling (TS), difference of confidences (DoC), and average thresholded confidence (ATC). We also extend the methods to estimate Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) in image segmentation. We conduct experiments on four tasks and find the proposed modifications consistently improve the estimation accuracy for imbalanced datasets. Our methods improve accuracy estimation by 18\% in classification under natural domain shifts, and double the estimation accuracy on segmentation tasks, when compared with prior methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2207.09957

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 method in [35] constructs its intervals from nonconformity scores based on softmax scores, which are known to suffer from calibration issues.

    “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 [39]

    The Introduction (p. 2) and Method (p. 4) describe softmax-based confidence scores and explain that uncalibrated probabilities may not reflect real accuracy. The paper describes estimating model performance from those scores, but does not describe constructing intervals from nonconformity scores; that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. [1]1. Ben-David, S., Blitzer, J., Crammer, K., Kulesza, A., Pereira, F., Vaughan, J.W.: A theory of learning from different domains. Machine learning 79 (1), 151-175 (2010)
  2. [3]3. Cao, K., Wei, C., Gaidon, A., Arechiga, N., Ma, T.: Learning imbalanced datasets with label-distribution-aware margin loss. NeurIPS 32 (2019)
  3. [4]4. Chen, M., Goel, K., Sohoni, N.S., Poms, F., Fatahalian, K., R´ e, C.: Mandoline: Model evaluation under distribution shift. In: ICML. pp. 1617-1629. PMLR (2021)
  4. [5]5. Combalia, M., Codella, N.C., Rotemberg, V., Helba, B., Vilaplana, V., Reiter, O., Carrera, C., Barreiro, A., Halpern, A.C., Puig, S., et al.: Bcn20000: Dermoscopic lesions in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02288 (2019) · arXiv
  5. [6]6. Deng, W., Zheng, L.: Are labels always necessary for classifier accuracy evaluation? In: CVPR. pp. 15069-15078 (2021)
  6. [7]7. Eche, T., Schwartz, L.H., Mokrane, F.Z., Dercle, L.: Toward generalizability in the deployment of artificial intelligence in radiology: Role of computation stress testing to overcome underspecification. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 3 (6), e210097 (2021)
  7. [8]8. Elsahar, H., Gall´ e, M.: To annotate or not? predicting performance drop under domain shift. In: EMNLP-IJCNLP. pp. 2163-2173 (2019)
  8. [9]9. Fan, W., Davidson, I.: Reverse testing: an efficient framework to select amongst classifiers under sample selection bias. In: ACM SIGKDD. pp. 147-156 (2006)
  9. [10]10. Garg, S., Balakrishnan, S., Lipton, Z.C., Neyshabur, B., Sedghi, H.: Leveraging unlabeled data to predict out-of-distribution performance. In: ICLR (2022), https: //openreview.net/forum?id=o\_HsiMPYh\_x
  10. [11]11. Guillory, D., Shankar, V., Ebrahimi, S., Darrell, T., Schmidt, L.: Predicting with confidence on unseen distributions. In: ICCV. pp. 1134-1144 (2021)
  11. [12]12. Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., Weinberger, K.Q.: On calibration of modern neural networks. In: ICML. pp. 1321-1330. PMLR (2017)
  12. [13]13. Gutman, D., Codella, N.C., Celebi, E., Helba, B., Marchetti, M., Mishra, N., Halpern, A.: Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi) 2016, hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (isic). arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01397 (2016) · arXiv
  13. [14]14. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: CVPR. pp. 770-778 (2016)
  14. [15]15. Hendrycks, D., Dietterich, T.: Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. Proceedings of the ICLR (2019)
  15. [16]16. Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods 18 (2), 203-211 (2021)
  16. [17]17. Islam, M., Seenivasan, L., Ren, H., Glocker, B.: Class-distribution-aware calibration for long-tailed visual recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05263 (2021) · arXiv
  17. [18]18. Kawahara, J., Daneshvar, S., Argenziano, G., Hamarneh, G.: Seven-point checklist and skin lesion classification using multitask multimodal neural nets. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 23 (2), 538-546 (2018)
  18. [20]20. Lemaˆ ıtre, G., Mart´ ı, R., Freixenet, J., Vilanova, J.C., Walker, P.M., Meriaudeau, F.: Computer-aided detection and diagnosis for prostate cancer based on mono and multi-parametric mri: a review. Computers in biology and medicine 60 , 8-31 (2015)
  19. [21]21. Li, Z., Kamnitsas, K., Glocker, B.: Analyzing overfitting under class imbalance in neural networks for image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40 (3), 1065-1077 (2020)
  20. [23]23. Litjens, G., Toth, R., van de Ven, W., Hoeks, C., Kerkstra, S., van Ginneken, B., Vincent, G., Guillard, G., Birbeck, N., Zhang, J., et al.: Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for mri: the promise12 challenge. Medical image analysis 18 (2), 359-373 (2014)
  21. [24]24. Liu, Q., Dou, Q., Heng, P.A.: Shape-aware meta-learning for generalizing prostate mri segmentation to unseen domains. In: MICCAI (2020)
  22. [25]25. Marrakchi, Y., Makansi, O., Brox, T.: Fighting class imbalance with contrastive learning. In: MICCAI. pp. 466-476. Springer (2021)
  23. [26]26. Mehrtash, A., Wells, W.M., Tempany, C.M., Abolmaesumi, P., Kapur, T.: Confidence calibration and predictive uncertainty estimation for deep medical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 39 (12), 3868-3878 (2020)
  24. [27]27. Mendon¸ ca, T., Ferreira, P.M., Marques, J.S., Marcal, A.R., Rozeira, J.: Ph 2-a dermoscopic image database for research and benchmarking. In: EMBC. pp. 54375440. IEEE (2013)
  25. [28]28. Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 3DV. pp. 565-571. IEEE (2016)
  26. [29]29. Pan, T.Y., Zhang, C., Li, Y., Hu, H., Xuan, D., Changpinyo, S., Gong, B., Chao, W.L.: On model calibration for long-tailed object detection and instance segmentation. NeurIPS 34 (2021)
  27. [30]30. Robinson, R., Oktay, O., Bai, W., Valindria, V.V., Sanghvi, M.M., Aung, N., Paiva, J.M., Zemrak, F., Fung, K., Lukaschuk, E., et al.: Real-time prediction of segmentation quality. In: MICCAI. pp. 578-585. Springer (2018)
  28. [31]31. Rotemberg, V., Kurtansky, N., Betz-Stablein, B., Caffery, L., Chousakos, E., Codella, N., Combalia, M., Dusza, S., Guitera, P., Gutman, D., et al.: A patientcentric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context. Scientific data 8 (1), 1-8 (2021)
  29. [32]32. Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al.: Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision 115 (3), 211-252 (2015)
  30. [33]33. Tschandl, P., Rosendahl, C., Kittler, H.: The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Scientific data 5 (1), 1-9 (2018)
  31. [34]34. Valindria, V.V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E.O., Rockall, A.G., Rueckert, D., Glocker, B.: Reverse classification accuracy: predicting segmentation performance in the absence of ground truth. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36 (8), 1597-1606 (2017)
  32. [35]35. Yoon, C., Hamarneh, G., Garbi, R.: Generalizable feature learning in the presence of data bias and domain class imbalance with application to skin lesion classification. In: MICCAI. pp. 365-373. Springer (2019)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • ConfIC-RCA: Statistically Grounded Efficient Estimation of Segmentation Quality

    Cosarinsky, M., Billot, R., Mansilla, L., Jimenez, G., Gaggión, N., Fu, G., Tirer, T., & Ferrante, E. (2025) · arXiv

    “For PHiSeg, we follow the conformal calibration procedure described in [35]: for each input image, N = 50 stochastic segmentations are generated, and the DSC is estimated from the softmax outputs [39], yielding a distribution of predicted DSCs per sample.”

Authors
Li, Z., Kamnitsas, K., Islam, M., Chen, C., & Glocker, B.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Li, Zeju
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
693-703
ISSN
0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296195043
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • UK Research and Innovation (EP/P001009/1)
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P001009/, EP/P001009/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
domain shift, model performance estimation, class imbalance, confidence calibration, temperature scaling, Dice coefficient, image segmentation

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