Practical estimation of the optimal classification error with soft labels and calibration
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While the performance of machine learning systems has experienced significant improvement in recent years, relatively little attention has been paid to the fundamental question: to what extent can we improve our models? This paper provides a means of answering this question in the setting of binary classification, which is practical and theoretically supported. We extend a previous work that utilizes soft labels for estimating the Bayes error, the optimal error rate, in two important ways. First, we theoretically investigate the properties of the bias of the hard-label-based estimator discussed in the original work. We reveal that the decay rate of the bias is adaptive to how well the two class-conditional distributions are separated, and it can decay significantly faster than the previous result suggested as the number of hard labels per instance grows. Second, we tackle a more challenging problem setting: estimation with corrupted soft labels. One might be tempted to use calibrated soft labels instead of clean ones. However, we reveal that calibration guarantee is not enough, that is, even perfectly calibrated soft labels can result in a substantially inaccurate estimate. Then, we show that isotonic calibration can provide a statistically consistent estimator under an assumption weaker than that of the previous work. Our method is instance-free, i.e., we do not assume access to any input instances. This feature allows it to be adopted in practical scenarios where the instances are not available due to privacy issues. Experiments with synthetic and real-world datasets show the validity of our methods and theory. The code is available at https://github.com/RyotaUshio/bayes-error-estimation.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 75 references.
References · 24
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2018Glow: Generative Flow with Invertible 1x1 Convolutionscited by 1,545
- 2019Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inferencecited by 1,323
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
- 2019Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibrationcited by 364
- 2019Verified Uncertainty Calibrationcited by 309
- 2022Estimating the Carbon Footprint of BLOOM, a 176B Parameter Language Modelcited by 265
12 more
- 2019Human uncertainty makes classification more robustcited by 235
- 2018Do CIFAR-10 Classifiers Generalize to CIFAR-10?cited by 200
- 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey designcited by 180
- 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
- 2017Learning from Complementary Labelscited by 88
- 2021Distributed NLI: Learning to Predict Human Opinion Distributions for Language Reasoningcited by 31
- 2024Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistencycited by 28
- 2022Is the Performance of My Deep Network Too Good to Be True? A Direct Approach to Estimating the Bayes Error in Binary Classificationcited by 26
- 2021Evaluating State-of-the-Art Classification Models Against Bayes Optimalitycited by 16
- 2019Integrals over Gaussians under Linear Domain Constraintscited by 15
- 2019Learning to Benchmark: Determining Best Achievable Misclassification Error from Training Datacited by 11
- 2021Evaluating Bayes Error Estimators on Real-World Datasets with FeeBeecited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026Brenier Isotonic Regressioncited by 1
- 2026The Calibration Channel Determines the Bayes-Error Proxy: An Exact Law for Temperature-Induced Distortioncited by 0
- 2026Bias-Corrected Ceilings of Emotion Predictability from Human Label Variation Based on Instance-Level Fano Boundscited by 0
- 2026Bayes-Optimal BER and AUC: Estimation and Evaluation of Estimatorscited by 0
- 2026AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidencecited by 0
- 2026ProbabilityBench: Model Evaluation and Calibration with Exact Ground-Truth Uncertaintycited by 0
- 2026ProbabilityBench: Model Evaluation and Calibration with Exact Ground-Truth Uncertainty12 Oct 2026
- 2026AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence10 Sep 2026
- 2026Bayes-Optimal BER and AUC: Estimation and Evaluation of Estimators2 Sep 2026
- 2026Bias-Corrected Ceilings of Emotion Predictability from Human Label Variation Based on Instance-Level Fano Bounds16 Aug 2026
- 2026The Calibration Channel Determines the Bayes-Error Proxy: An Exact Law for Temperature-Induced Distortion20 Jul 2026
- 2026Brenier Isotonic Regression11 Mar 2026