Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses a critical deployment challenge where calibration labels are as noisy as training data, proposing LWCal and Gated-LWCal as lightweight, CPU-only solutions that improve reliability without retraining base models. By down-weighting contradictory examples or backing off to raw scores under high inconsistency, these methods significantly reduce expected calibration error across diverse tabular tasks and tree-based learners. The work advances practical machine learning by removing the unrealistic assumption of clean validation sets often found in theoretical benchmarks.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

LWCal: Loss-Weighted Calibration for Tabular Classifiers with Noisy Calibration Labels

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.26839v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.

Abstract: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.

8 pages, 7 figures. Accepted at the 38th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2026)

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.26839 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.26839v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26839 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 324 words

Related coverage