# Condition-Stratified Robustness Analysis of Post-Hoc Calibration Methods for Probabilistic Classifiers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11542 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11542/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02142/) (2015)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04977/) (2017)
- [Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02530/) (2019)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.02757/) (2019)
- [Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.07998/) (2021)
- [Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12656/) (2019)
- [Verified Uncertainty Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.10155/) (2019)
- [Evaluating model calibration in classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.06977/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Post-hoc calibration is widely adopted to correct probability estimates from trained classifiers, yet most evaluations report aggregate performance without testing whether that performance holds across distinct operating conditions within a single dataset. We present a pre-registered, condition-stratified robustness analysis comparing temperature scaling (TEMP) and isotonic regression (ISO) across four controlled conditions (C1--C4). Four hypothesis groups are evaluated: discrimination deltas with Holm-corrected multiplicity control (H1), Brier score differences (H2), calibration slope outcomes (H3), and AUROC differences under best-condition setups (H4). TEMP-minus-ISO discrimination deltas remain small across all conditions (-0.0155 to 0.0139), with Holm-adjusted p-values of 0.9895 everywhere. TEMP Brier differences are consistently negative (C1: -0.0002 through C4: -0.0074), while ISO shows sign reversals. TEMP calibration slopes stay closer to unity in every condition (range 0.7597--0.9493) than ISO slopes (0.1364--0.2726). AUROC differences shift from near zero in C1 (-0.0004) to positive in C4 (0.0264). These results establish that in-dataset robustness is condition-dependent and metric-specific. No claim of external transportability is made.