cs.LGMar 14, 2026

Soft Mean Expected Calibration Error (SMECE): A Calibration Metric for Probabilistic Labels

Authors: Michael Leznik

Abstract

The Expected Calibration Error (ece), the dominant calibration metric in machine learning, compares predicted probabilities against empirical frequencies of binary outcomes. This is appropriate when labels are binary events. However, many modern settings produce labels that are themselves probabilities rather than binary outcomes: a radiologist's stated confidence, a teacher model's soft output in knowledge distillation, a class posterior derived from a generative model, or an annotator agreement fraction. In these settings, ece commits a category error - it discards the probabilistic information in the label by forcing it into a binary comparison. The result is not a noisy approximation that more data will correct. It is a structural misalignment that persists and converges to the wrong answer with increasing precision as sample size grows. We introduce the Soft Mean Expected Calibration Error (smece), a calibration metric for settings where labels are of probabilistic nature. The modification to the ece formula is one line: replace the empirical hard-label fraction in each prediction bin with the mean probability label of the samples in that bin. smece reduces exactly to ece when labels are binary, making it a strict generalisation.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

Feb 27, 2026

V-ECE: Estimating General Expected Calibration Errors

In probabilistic classification, calibration error (CE) measures the average divergence of predicted probabilities f(X)f(X) from P(Y∣f(X))\mathbb{P}(Y|f(X)), the true class distribution for that predicted probability. While being a useful diagnostic tool, it is hard to estimate: popular binning-based estimators are often inconsistent and scale poorly beyond two classes. Recent work rewrites the CE as the excess risk of a model compared to the best recalibration of its own predictions, measured with a proper loss. However, this only works for Bregman-divergence-based calibration errors like the squared error, excluding the more popular L1L_1-distance-based CE. We show that using prediction-dependent proper scores can alleviate this restriction, allowing us to estimate CEs with general convex divergences, including LpL_p distances with closed-form losses in the binary and multiclass settings. To estimate the excess risk, we introduce a more accurate recalibrator that fits a residual to temperature scaling with gradient boosting. The resulting variational estimator, V-ECE, needs no bins or clusters and lower-bounds the true calibration error in expectation. On a benchmark of semi-synthetic tasks built from real classifiers, with known true CE, V-ECE is among the most accurate binary estimators for every calibration error and significantly outperforms all multiclass estimators. Our results are accompanied by additional theory on LpL_p CE, estimator bias, and over- or under-confidence estimation.
Sep 11, 2026

A Ranking Approach for Measuring Calibration

When providing forecasted probabilities with a predictive model, the ideal model offers perfect calibration: the true probability of the outcome (i.e., the probability that Y=1Y=1) exactly matches the forecasted probability f(X)f(X). In practice, models inevitably exhibit calibration error, and it is therefore important to be able to measure this miscalibration to assess a model's reliability. The Expected Calibration Error (ECE) is the most widely used measure of miscalibration, but is known to be impossible to estimate the ECE with guaranteed accuracy in an assumption-free setting. In this work, we propose an alternative measure, the rankECE, that is based on comparing points with neighboring values of the predicted probability f(X)f(X). Our theoretical guarantees and empirical results establish that rankECE provides a better proxy for ECE as compared to binned approximations to ECE, which are the most commonly-used approximations in practice.
Mar 24, 2026

Confidence Calibration under Ambiguous Ground Truth

Confidence calibration assumes a unique ground-truth label per input, yet this assumption fails wherever annotators genuinely disagree. Post-hoc calibrators fitted on majority-voted labels, the standard single-label targets used in practice, can appear well-calibrated under conventional evaluation yet remain substantially miscalibrated against the underlying annotator distribution. We show that this failure is structural: under simplifying assumptions, Temperature Scaling is biased toward temperatures that underestimate annotator uncertainty, with true-label miscalibration increasing monotonically with annotation entropy. To address this, we develop a family of ambiguity-aware post-hoc calibrators that optimise proper scoring rules against the full label distribution and require no model retraining. Our methods span progressively weaker annotation requirements: Dirichlet-Soft leverages the full annotator distribution and achieves the best overall calibration quality across settings; Monte Carlo Temperature Scaling with a single annotation per example (MCTS S=1) matches full-distribution calibration across all benchmarks, demonstrating that pre-aggregated label distributions are unnecessary; and Label-Smooth Temperature Scaling (LS-TS) operates with voted labels alone by constructing data-driven pseudo-soft targets from the model's own confidence. Experiments on four benchmarks with real multi-annotator distributions (CIFAR-10H, ChaosNLI) and clinically-informed synthetic annotations (ISIC~2019, DermaMNIST) show that Dirichlet-Soft reduces true-label ECE by 55-87% relative to Temperature Scaling, while LS-TS reduces ECE by 9-77% without any annotator data.