The Calibration Channel Determines the Bayes-Error Proxy: An Exact Law for Temperature-Induced Distortion

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.

Post-hoc calibration is widely adopted to correct probability estimates from trained classifiers, yet most evaluations report aggregate performance without testing whether that performance holds across distinct operating conditions within a single dataset. We present a pre-registered, condition-stratified robustness analysis comparing temperature scaling (TEMP) and isotonic regression (ISO) across four controlled conditions (C1--C4). Four hypothesis groups are evaluated: discrimination deltas with Holm-corrected multiplicity control (H1), Brier score differences (H2), calibration slope outcomes (H3), and AUROC differences under best-condition setups (H4). TEMP-minus-ISO discrimination deltas remain small across all conditions (-0.0155 to 0.0139), with Holm-adjusted p-values of 0.9895 everywhere. TEMP Brier differences are consistently negative (C1: -0.0002 through C4: -0.0074), while ISO shows sign reversals. TEMP calibration slopes stay closer to unity in every condition (range 0.7597--0.9493) than ISO slopes (0.1364--0.2726). AUROC differences shift from near zero in C1 (-0.0004) to positive in C4 (0.0264). These results establish that in-dataset robustness is condition-dependent and metric-specific. No claim of external transportability is made.

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.