Confidence Calibration under Ambiguous Ground Truth
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
| Method | ECE (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| TS (voted labels) | 4.29 | |
| MCTS | ||
| MCTS | ||
| MCTS | ||
| MCTS | ||
| MCTS |
| ResNet-50 | ViT-B/16 | |||||||||||
| Method | ECE | aECE | cwECE | Br | NLL | ECE | aECE | cwECE | Br | NLL | ||
| CIFAR-10H ( annotations per image, ) | ||||||||||||
| Voted-label baselines | ||||||||||||
| Uncalibrated | — | 4.97 | 5.71 | 1.09 | 0.120 | 0.692 | — | 4.99 | 5.36 | 1.06 | 0.111 | 0.678 |
| TS | 2.03 | 4.29 | 4.25 | 0.91 | 0.112 | 0.363 | 2.04 | 4.48 | 4.40 | 0.93 | 0.106 | 0.346 |
| ATS | — | 4.40 | 4.37 | 0.94 | 0.113 | 0.350 | — | 4.54 | 4.47 | 0.94 | 0.106 | 0.345 |
| EfficientNet-B4 | ViT-S/16 | |||||||||||
| Method | ECE | aECE | cwECE | Br | NLL | ECE | aECE | cwECE | Br | NLL | ||
| ISIC 2019 ( synthetic annotators, , mean agreement ) | ||||||||||||
| Voted-label baselines | ||||||||||||
| Uncalibrated | — | 25.87 | 25.97 | 6.64 | 0.600 | 2.686 | — | 21.28 | 21.17 | 6.21 | 0.650 | 1.803 |
| TS | 1.77 | 18.72 | 18.70 | 5.02 | 0.559 | 1.661 | 1.23 | 17.04 | 16.95 | 5.49 | 0.630 | 1.578 |
| ATS | 1.70 | 18.83 | 18.80 | 5.03 | 0.560 | 1.733 | 1.12 | 17.53 | 17.48 | 5.46 | 0.631 | 1.730 |
| CIFAR R50 | CIFAR ViT | Chaos RoBERTa | Chaos DeBERTa | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | ECE | Br | NLL | ECE | Br | NLL | ECE | Br | NLL | ECE | Br | NLL |
| TS (voted) | 3.90 | .1126 | .346 | 4.01 | .1043 | .320 | 10.55 | .537 | .886 | 11.63 | .549 | .900 |
| Fixed-LS ( ) | 7.44 | .1207 | .332 | 6.00 | .1058 | .305 | 6.46 | .525 | .866 | 7.53 | .536 | .882 |
| Ent-LS | 3.16 | .1116 | .321 | 3.69 | .1037 | .308 | 3.17 | .520 | .862 | 8.58 | .539 | .885 |
| CC-LS | 1.48 | .1111 | .296 | 1.69 | .1016 | .279 | 4.15 | .522 | .873 | 2.54 | .529 | .880 |
| LS-TS (ours) | 1.49 | .1111 | .296 | 1.62 | .1016 | .279 | 4.16 | .522 | .873 | 2.65 | .529 | .881 |
| Dataset | Arch | TS | SLTS | Dir.-Soft | IR-Soft |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10H | R50 | ||||
| CIFAR-10H | ViT-B/16 | ||||
| ChaosNLI | RoBERTa-L | ||||
| ChaosNLI | DeBERTa-v3 | ||||
| ISIC 2019 | ENet-B4 | ||||
| ISIC 2019 | ViT-S/16 |
Appendix figures & tables26 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| MEL | NV | BCC | AK | BKL | DF | VL | SCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEL | 0.73 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| NV | 0.15 | 0.76 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| BCC | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.81 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| AK | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.65 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.16 |
| BKL | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
| DF | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| C10H R50 | C10H ViT | NLI RoBERTa | NLI DeBERTa | ISIC ENet | ISIC ViT | Derm R18 | Derm ViT | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br | ECE | Br |
| TS | 4.29 | .112 | 4.48 | .106 | 10.55 | .537 | 11.63 | .549 | 18.72 | .559 | 17.04 | .630 | 22.25 | .687 | 24.65 | .683 |
| ATS | 4.40 | .113 | 4.54 | .106 | 11.36 | .538 | 13.09 | .552 | 18.83 | .560 | 17.53 | .631 | 22.82 | .687 | 25.35 | .686 |
| LS-TS | 1.57 | .109 | 2.37 | .103 | 4.16 | .522 | 2.65 | .529 | 9.34 | .528 | 15.49 | .619 | 5.05 | .630 | 7.36 | .615 |
Post-Hoc Calibration
Post-hoc calibration adjusts a trained model’s probabilities or confidence scores to better match observed accuracy, often without retraining.
See all 81 papers