Noisy-Label Calibration with Multiple Unreliable Labels

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.

Post-hoc probability calibration is usually evaluated under an optimistic assumption: the held-out calibration labels are clean. In many AI deployment settings, however, labels come from weak annotators, historical decisions, heuristics, or distant supervision, so the same label noise that corrupts training also corrupts calibration. We study this overlooked failure mode for tabular classifiers and propose LWCal, a CPU-only post-hoc calibrator that down-weights calibration examples whose noisy labels are contradicted by the base model's held-out probability. LWCal requires no clean validation labels, no noise-rate estimate, and no retraining of the base classifier. A second variant, Gated-LWCal, adds a conservative disagreement gate that backs off toward the raw score when the calibration split appears extremely inconsistent. On nine local binary tabular tasks, six random seeds, symmetric and asymmetric label corruption, and three tree-based base learners, LWCal obtains the lowest average calibration error while Gated-LWCal obtains the best average proper-score tradeoff. In the main random-forest study over 432 noisy cells, Gated-LWCal reduces expected calibration error from 0.188 to 0.122 and negative log likelihood from 0.438 to 0.396 relative to the raw classifier. Paired bootstrap intervals for Gated-LWCal versus raw, Platt, isotonic, and beta calibration exclude zero on ECE, Brier score, and NLL. The artifact contains all scripts, result tables, figures, and the compiled paper.

A key factor in deciding whether to trust an automatic prediction is its confidence score, which should be calibrated to match the actual probability of the prediction being correct. Most confidence calibration metrics target binary or multi-class tasks, while multi-label calibration remains largely underexplored. Multi-label classification tasks, such as assigning medical codes to clinical notes or determining news topics, are usually dominated by a large number of negatives, i.e., labels that do not apply. We show that existing binning schemes to compute label-wise expected calibration error either underestimate the error, simply reflect label frequency, or suffer from many bins with very few instances. To achieve trustworthy label-wise calibration errors, we propose a new binning scheme that gives equal weight to positive and negative label assignments. Our empirical study demonstrates that in contrast to existing binning schemes, our new scheme results in meaningful estimates of calibration error in hierarchical and in extreme multi-label classification. We also show that calibrating confidence scores of large language models for multi-label predictions is an open challenge. Our detailed analysis lays the foundation for further research by providing a solid evaluation metric for measuring calibration in multi-label classification.