REVIEW 1 cited by
AdaFocal: Calibration-aware Adaptive Focal Loss
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
AdaFocal: Calibration-aware Adaptive Focal Loss
read the original abstract
Much recent work has been devoted to the problem of ensuring that a neural network's confidence scores match the true probability of being correct, i.e. the calibration problem. Of note, it was found that training with focal loss leads to better calibration than cross-entropy while achieving similar level of accuracy \cite{mukhoti2020}. This success stems from focal loss regularizing the entropy of the model's prediction (controlled by the parameter $\gamma$), thereby reining in the model's overconfidence. Further improvement is expected if $\gamma$ is selected independently for each training sample (Sample-Dependent Focal Loss (FLSD-53) \cite{mukhoti2020}). However, FLSD-53 is based on heuristics and does not generalize well. In this paper, we propose a calibration-aware adaptive focal loss called AdaFocal that utilizes the calibration properties of focal (and inverse-focal) loss and adaptively modifies $\gamma_t$ for different groups of samples based on $\gamma_{t-1}$ from the previous step and the knowledge of model's under/over-confidence on the validation set. We evaluate AdaFocal on various image recognition and one NLP task, covering a wide variety of network architectures, to confirm the improvement in calibration while achieving similar levels of accuracy. Additionally, we show that models trained with AdaFocal achieve a significant boost in out-of-distribution detection.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Measurement of the branching ratio of the $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay
NA62 measures Br(K⁺→π⁺νν̄) = (9.6±1.9)×10⁻¹¹ from 2016–2024 data, a 20% relative-precision measurement consistent with the Standard Model.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.