Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study rigorously analyzes how temperature scaling, a common post-hoc calibration method, distorts the soft-label Bayes-error proxy in binary classification tasks. By establishing a model-free identity linking the temperature-scaled proxy to the classifier's margin distribution, the authors reveal that the proxy can vary significantly (56x to 980x) at constant test error, indicating that the calibration temperature that minimizes expected calibration error does not align with stable proxy values. These findings emphasize the necessity of understanding the calibration mechanism to interpret proxy values meaningfully in practice.
Temperature scaling can distort Bayes-error estimates by up to 980x at constant test accuracy, challenging the reliability of soft-label proxies.
The soft-label Bayes-error estimator beta(z) = E[min(z, 1-z)] of Ishida et al. estimates the irreducible error of a binary task directly from probability-valued labels. Recent work by Ushio et al. showed that this estimator is fragile when the probabilities are not the true posterior: even perfectly calibrated soft labels can yield a substantially inaccurate estimate, and they propose isotonic calibration as a consistent remedy. We complement that line of work by characterizing exactly how the most widely used post-hoc calibration map -- temperature scaling -- distorts the proxy. We prove an exact, model-free identity reducing the temperature-scaled proxy to the classifier's margin distribution, from which we obtain (i) strict monotonicity in the temperature and (ii) a continuous bijection from the temperature axis onto the open interval (0, 1/2), so that a fixed classifier -- with fixed decisions and fixed 0-1 error -- can be made to report any proxy value whatsoever. Under a Gaussian model of the logits we further derive a two-parameter closed form for the entire proxy-versus-temperature curve. Across CIFAR-10, Fashion-MNIST, and SVHN (eight binary tasks), the proxy varies by 56x to 980x at constant test error, the closed form reproduces the empirical curve to within 0.018, and the calibration temperature that minimizes the expected calibration error does not coincide with any stable proxy value. Our results give a precise, predictive account of the distortion whose existence motivates calibration-based remedies, and they reinforce the practical recommendation that a proxy value is meaningful only together with the mechanism that produced its probabilities.