Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Calibrated Language Model Fine-Tuning for In- and Out-of-Distribution Data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.11506 v1 pith:B6XFIWYT submitted 2020-10-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords calibrationdataregularizationmethodpseudosamplesdetectionfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Fine-tuned pre-trained language models can suffer from severe miscalibration for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) data due to over-parameterization. To mitigate this issue, we propose a regularized fine-tuning method. Our method introduces two types of regularization for better calibration: (1) On-manifold regularization, which generates pseudo on-manifold samples through interpolation within the data manifold. Augmented training with these pseudo samples imposes a smoothness regularization to improve in-distribution calibration. (2) Off-manifold regularization, which encourages the model to output uniform distributions for pseudo off-manifold samples to address the over-confidence issue for OOD data. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms existing calibration methods for text classification in terms of expectation calibration error, misclassification detection, and OOD detection on six datasets. Our code can be found at https://github.com/Lingkai-Kong/Calibrated-BERT-Fine-Tuning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment

    cs.AI 2023-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Survey organizes LLM trustworthiness into seven categories and 29 sub-categories, measures eight sub-categories on popular models, and finds that more aligned models generally score higher but with varying effectiveness.

  2. Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Headache specialists preferred their own literature summaries over those from Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1 in a blinded evaluation, though AI summaries were sometimes indistinguishable.

Pith tools