LWCal: Loss-Weighted Calibration for Tabular Classifiers with Noisy Calibration 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.

Post-training often improves task performance but can degrade confidence calibration, leaving post-trained language models (PoLMs) more overconfident than their corresponding pretrained language models (PLMs). Because task-specific labeled calibration data can be costly or unavailable, the corresponding PLM provides a natural label-free reference for post-hoc calibration. Prior agreement-gated PLM-referenced calibration fits a scalar temperature using only examples on which the PoLM and its PLM reference agree, excluding disagreement examples because direct alignment can drive the fitted temperature excessively high and induce under-confidence. We revisit this binary treatment. A controlled reintroduction diagnostic reveals a non monotonic aggregate effect: admitting a moderate fraction of disagreement examples can improve calibration, whereas the benefit diminishes as unit weight inclusion approaches the full disagreement set. We introduce SupportCal, a label-free post-hoc method that retains agreement examples at unit weight and assigns disagreement examples continuous weights based on the own-base PLM's relative support and corroboration from pretrained references selected from a size-compatible candidate pool. We further characterize when the resulting weighted objective admits a finite optimal temperature. Across MedMCQA and MathQA, SupportCal yields lower mean ECE than the agreement-only baseline for nearly all evaluated target-model configurations; supplementary TweetEval Sentiment results show the same pattern on a fixed-label classification task.

Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated. Post-hoc calibration provides a simple and widely used solution, but the large number of proposed methods, combined with small-scale and inconsistent evaluations, makes it difficult to determine which approaches are truly effective in practice. We introduce a large-scale, standardized benchmark for post-hoc calibration, covering nearly 2000 experiments across tabular and computer vision tasks, including binary, multiclass, and large-scale classification settings. Our benchmark aggregates predictions from a diverse set of classical models, modern deep learning architectures, and foundation models, and provides unified, reproducible implementations of dozens of calibration methods within a common evaluation framework. We argue that Post-Hoc Improvement (PHI) in proper scoring rules offers a principled alternative to traditional calibration error estimators for comparing post-hoc methods, capturing both calibration quality and potential degradation to the model's predictive performance. Using this framework, we conduct the most comprehensive empirical study of post-hoc calibration to date. Our results reveal consistent patterns across domains: smooth calibration functions outperform binning-based approaches, dedicated multiclass methods are essential in high-dimensional settings, and generic machine learning models are not competitive without calibration-specific design. To facilitate future research, we release all data, code, and evaluation tools, providing a plug-and-play benchmark for developing and comparing calibration methods.