Temperature Scaling Is Not Enough: Calibration Gaps Under Human Label Distributions

Abstract

Temperature scaling is the dominant post-hoc calibration method in modern deep learning. Its theoretical justification rests on an assumption that is rarely stated explicitly: that ground-truth labels are one-hot and deterministic. In practice, labels are frequently soft, crowd-sourced, or genuinely distributional, reflecting real disagreement among human annotators rather than annotation noise. We study whether temperature scaling retains its calibration properties when this assumption is violated, and whether any resulting degradation depends on model scale. Using CIFAR-10H and ChaosNLI, two publicly available datasets with human-annotated soft label distributions, we evaluate three model scales per modality under both hard one-hot and soft distributional label targets. Across all nine configurations we find a positive soft-label calibration gap: temperature scaling calibrated on hard labels consistently underperforms an oracle calibrated directly on soft labels, with Brier Score gaps ranging from 0.002 to 0.134. The gap grows monotonically with model scale in the vision domain and on the SNLI-derived split of ChaosNLI, and is substantially larger in the language domain (mean gap 0.079) than in vision (mean gap 0.003). A scale-ordering reversal on the MNLI-derived split remains after matched-domain training; we treat it as inconclusive for the scale hypothesis and attribute it primarily to near-chance accuracy on that split. As a second post-hoc baseline, multiclass isotonic regression yields the same qualitative conclusion: positive soft-label gaps in all nine configurations, and larger gaps in language than in vision. These findings suggest that calibration protocols built on majority-vote labels systematically misstate model reliability wherever label ambiguity is structural, with direct consequences for deployment in safety-critical settings.