Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Calibrated Language Model Fine-Tuning for In- and Out-of-Distribution Data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.11506 v1 pith:B6XFIWYT submitted 2020-10-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords calibrationdataregularizationmethodpseudosamplesdetectionfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Fine-tuned pre-trained language models can suffer from severe miscalibration for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) data due to over-parameterization. To mitigate this issue, we propose a regularized fine-tuning method. Our method introduces two types of regularization for better calibration: (1) On-manifold regularization, which generates pseudo on-manifold samples through interpolation within the data manifold. Augmented training with these pseudo samples imposes a smoothness regularization to improve in-distribution calibration. (2) Off-manifold regularization, which encourages the model to output uniform distributions for pseudo off-manifold samples to address the over-confidence issue for OOD data. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms existing calibration methods for text classification in terms of expectation calibration error, misclassification detection, and OOD detection on six datasets. Our code can be found at https://github.com/Lingkai-Kong/Calibrated-BERT-Fine-Tuning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    On 284 medical questions derived from Cochrane systematic reviews, the best of 24 LLMs, DeepSeek V3, matches expert conclusions 62.40% of the time, and all tested models struggle with uncertain or low-quality evidence.

Pith tools