mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Calibrating Segmentation Networks with Margin-based Label Smoothing

arXiv 2209.09641 ↗First posted 9 Sep 2022cs.CVcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the undeniable progress in visual recognition tasks fueled by deep neural networks, there exists recent evidence showing that these models are poorly calibrated, resulting in over-confident predictions. The standard practices of minimizing the cross entropy loss during training promote the predicted softmax probabilities to match the one-hot label assignments. Nevertheless, this yields a pre-softmax activation of the correct class that is significantly larger than the remaining activations, which exacerbates the miscalibration problem. Recent observations from the classification literature suggest that loss functions that embed implicit or explicit maximization of the entropy of predictions yield state-of-the-art calibration performances. Despite these findings, the impact of these losses in the relevant task of calibrating medical image segmentation networks remains unexplored. In this work, we provide a unifying constrained-optimization perspective of current state-of-the-art calibration losses. Specifically, these losses could be viewed as approximations of a linear penalty (or a Lagrangian term) imposing equality constraints on logit distances. This points to an important limitation of such underlying equality constraints, whose ensuing gradients constantly push towards a non-informative solution, which might prevent from reaching the best compromise between the discriminative performance and calibration of the model during gradient-based optimization. Following our observations, we propose a simple and flexible generalization based on inequality constraints, which imposes a controllable margin on logit distances. Comprehensive experiments on a variety of public medical image segmentation benchmarks demonstrate that our method sets novel state-of-the-art results on these tasks in terms of network calibration, whereas the discriminative performance is also improved.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2022.

Builds on

18 of 51 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  2. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  3. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  4. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
  5. 2021TransUNet: Transformers Make Strong Encoders for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,552
  6. 2018Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreascited by 1,420
  7. 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 985
  8. 2015Weight Uncertainty in Neural Networkscited by 554
  9. 2018Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challengecited by 508
  10. 2017Regularizing Neural Networks by Penalizing Confident Output Distributionscited by 461
  11. 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 438
  12. 2021Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 387
6 more
  1. 2020Calibrating Deep Neural Networks using Focal Losscited by 353
  2. 2020Does label smoothing mitigate label noise?cited by 204
  3. 2020Mix-n-Match: Ensemble and Compositional Methods for Uncertainty Calibration in Deep Learningcited by 190
  4. 2020Hyperparameter Ensembles for Robustness and Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 149
  5. 2021Meta-Cal: Well-controlled Post-hoc Calibration by Rankingcited by 33
  6. 2019Confidence Calibration for Convolutional Neural Networks Using Structured Dropoutcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.