cs.LGMar 24, 2026

Confidence Calibration under Ambiguous Ground Truth

Authors: Linwei Tao, Haoyang Luo, Minjing Dong, Chang Xu

Organizations: L. Tao and C. Xu are with the School of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. · H. Luo and M. Dong are with the Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Abstract

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.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables26 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Jul 15, 2026

Temperature Scaling Is Not Enough: Calibration Gaps Under Human Label Distributions

Temperature scaling is the dominant post-hoc calibration method in modern deep learning. Its theoretical justification rests on an assumption that is rarely stated explicitly: that ground-truth labels are one-hot and deterministic. In practice, labels are frequently soft, crowd-sourced, or genuinely distributional, reflecting real disagreement among human annotators rather than annotation noise. We study whether temperature scaling retains its calibration properties when this assumption is violated, and whether any resulting degradation depends on model scale. Using CIFAR-10H and ChaosNLI, two publicly available datasets with human-annotated soft label distributions, we evaluate three model scales per modality under both hard one-hot and soft distributional label targets. Across all nine configurations we find a positive soft-label calibration gap: temperature scaling calibrated on hard labels consistently underperforms an oracle calibrated directly on soft labels, with Brier Score gaps ranging from 0.002 to 0.134. The gap grows monotonically with model scale in the vision domain and on the SNLI-derived split of ChaosNLI, and is substantially larger in the language domain (mean gap 0.079) than in vision (mean gap 0.003). A scale-ordering reversal on the MNLI-derived split remains after matched-domain training; we treat it as inconclusive for the scale hypothesis and attribute it primarily to near-chance accuracy on that split. As a second post-hoc baseline, multiclass isotonic regression yields the same qualitative conclusion: positive soft-label gaps in all nine configurations, and larger gaps in language than in vision. These findings suggest that calibration protocols built on majority-vote labels systematically misstate model reliability wherever label ambiguity is structural, with direct consequences for deployment in safety-critical settings.
Oct 14, 2026

Noisy-Label Calibration with Multiple Unreliable Labels

In medical annotation and crowdsourcing, multiple annotators assign labels to each example, but these labels may be incorrect. Treating such noisy labels as ground truth can bias calibration evaluation. To address this problem, we propose methods for evaluating and recalibrating a fixed binary predictor under the underlying clean-label distribution, using only noisy annotations. First, given annotator-specific noise probabilities, we propose Noise Corrected ECE (NC-ECE), a binned estimator of expected calibration error (ECE) under class-conditional noise. We derive non-asymptotic bounds on the estimator's bias. Then, we propose practical algorithms for estimating unknown noise probabilities under conditional independence and label-orientation assumptions. We also develop loss-based and histogram post-hoc recalibration with clean-risk and calibration guarantees, respectively. Experiments on semi-synthetic benchmarks show that the proposed ECE estimator closely tracks its clean-label oracle counterpart and that the recalibration methods substantially improve latent-label calibration, whereas uncorrected recalibration against noisy annotations can degrade it.
Jun 19, 2026

Quantile Adaptive Temperature Scaling for Confidence Calibration

Deep neural networks often produce poorly calibrated confidence estimates, overstating their certainty even when predictions are incorrect. Temperature Scaling remains the most widely used posthoc calibration method due to its simplicity and effectiveness, yet its global, uniform rescaling of logits fails to correct the highly heterogeneous structure of miscalibration observed across the confidence spectrum. In particular, the largest correctness confidence discrepancies arise in different quantile regions depending on the setting, low confidence predictions, where uncertainty matters most, tend to exhibit the largest correctness confidence discrepancies, which standard TS leaves largely unaddressed. We introduce Quantile Adaptive Temperature Scaling (QaTS), a simple and efficient post hoc calibration method that adapts the temperature as a function of a predictions empirical confidence quantile. By mapping confidences into the quantile space, QaTS normalizes the calibration problem, makes the structure of miscalibration explicit and enables a monotone temperature function that adapts across quantiles while leaving well calibrated high confidence predictions largely unchanged. preserving high confidence behavior. This quantile aware formulation aligns naturally with a reparameterized Expected Calibration Error (ECE) objective and yields a sample wise temperature that is robust across a variety of challenging scenarios, such as class imbalance and distributional shifts. Across a broad range of datasets, architectures, evaluation scenarios and diverse tasks, QaTS consistently, and substantially, outperforms state of the art post hoc calibration methods, delivering more reliable and trustworthy confidence estimates without modifying model predictions.