Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Understanding Model Calibration -- A gentle introduction and visual exploration of calibration and the expected calibration error (ECE)

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 2501.19047 v5 pith:LH3INP6Z submitted 2025-01-31 stat.ME cs.AIcs.CVcs.LGstat.ML

classification stat.MEcs.AIcs.CVcs.LGstat.ML
keywords calibrationevaluationmeasuremodelusedgentleintroductionmeasures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

To be considered reliable, a model must be calibrated so that its confidence in each decision closely reflects its true outcome. In this blogpost we'll take a look at the most commonly used definition for calibration and then dive into a frequently used evaluation measure for model calibration. We'll then cover some of the drawbacks of this measure and how these surfaced the need for additional notions of calibration, which require their own new evaluation measures. This post is not intended to be an in-depth dissection of all works on calibration, nor does it focus on how to calibrate models. Instead, it is meant to provide a gentle introduction to the different notions and their evaluation measures as well as to re-highlight some issues with a measure that is still widely used to evaluate calibration.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show average overconfidence moderated by a strong hard-easy effect, quantified across tasks and via the new LifeEval actuarial-probability benchmark.

  2. Wired for Overconfidence: A Mechanistic Perspective on Inflated Verbalized Confidence in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Inflated verbalized confidence in Qwen2.5-3B and Llama-3.2-3B is driven by a compact, cross-dataset set of middle-to-late-layer MLP blocks and attention heads, and steering or ablating those components at inference ti...

  3. Improving Detection of Rare Nodes in Hierarchical Multi-Label Learning

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A node-weighted loss combining inverse-frequency weighting and ensemble-uncertainty focal terms improves recall of rare classes in hierarchical multi-label models by up to ~5x.

  4. False Fixed Points: Kantian Feedback, Stable Miscalibration, and Representational Compression in LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Confidently wrong LLM answers behave like locally stable fixed points: no fragility gap vs correct answers, and abstention-style self-critique trades coverage for confidence.

Pith tools