# Beyond Overconfidence: Foundation Models Redefine Calibration in Deep Neural Networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09593 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09593/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.14030/) (2021)
- [Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14294/) (2021)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [A ConvNet for the 2020s](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.03545/) (2022)
- [CutMix: Regularization Strategy to Train Strong Classifiers with Localizable Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.04899/) (2019)
- [Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.12261/) (2019)
- [BEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.08254/) (2021)
- [RandAugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.13719/) (2019)
- [An Empirical Study of Training Self-Supervised Vision Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.02057/) (2021)
- [Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10811/) (2019)
- [Natural Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.07174/) (2019)
- [Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02530/) (2019)
- [Random Erasing Data Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.04896/) (2017)
- [Going deeper with Image Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.17239/) (2021)
- [Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.10054/) (2022)
- [EVA: Exploring the Limits of Masked Visual Representation Learning at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.07636/) (2022)
- [MedMNIST v2 -- A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14795/) (2021)
- [Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.07998/) (2021)
- [On Mixup Training: Improved Calibration and Predictive Uncertainty for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11001/) (2019)
- [Mix-n-Match: Ensemble and Compositional Methods for Uncertainty Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.07329/) (2020)
- [Uncertainty Quantification and Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08792/) (2020)
- [Self-Supervised Learning with Swin Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.04553/) (2021)
- [Calibration of Neural Networks using Splines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.12800/) (2020)
- [Parameterized Temperature Scaling for Boosting the Expressive Power in Post-Hoc Uncertainty Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12182/) (2021)
- [MedMNIST-C: Comprehensive benchmark and improved classifier robustness by simulating realistic image corruptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17536/) (2024)
- [Consistent and Asymptotically Unbiased Estimation of Proper Calibration Errors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08589/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [CalArena: A Large-Scale Post-Hoc Calibration Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30188/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reliable uncertainty calibration is essential for safely deploying deep neural networks in high-stakes applications. Deep neural networks are known to exhibit systematic overconfidence, especially under distribution shifts. Although foundation models such as ConvNeXt, EVA and BEiT have demonstrated significant improvements in predictive performance, their calibration properties remain underexplored. This paper presents a comprehensive investigation into the calibration behavior of foundation models, revealing insights that challenge established paradigms. Our empirical analysis shows that these models tend to be underconfident in in-distribution predictions, resulting in higher calibration errors, while demonstrating improved calibration under distribution shifts. Furthermore, we demonstrate that foundation models are highly responsive to post-hoc calibration techniques in the in-distribution setting, enabling practitioners to effectively mitigate underconfidence bias. However, these methods become progressively less reliable under severe distribution shifts and can occasionally produce counterproductive results. Our findings highlight the complex, non-monotonic effects of architectural and training innovations on calibration, challenging established narratives of continuous improvement.