PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Set Learning for Accurate and Calibrated Models

Lukas Muttenthaler, Robert A. Vandermeulen, Qiuyi Zhang, Thomas Unterthiner, Klaus Robert Muller

general MLset learningcalibrationoverconfidenceclass imbalancelong-tailed classificationlow dataclassification calibrationsafety
91.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
90.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
92.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.46)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We introduce odd-k-out learning (OKO), a novel, theoretically grounded training framework for classification based on learning from sets of data to yield accurate and well-calibrated models, even in low data regimes.

Abstract

Model overconfidence and poor calibration are common in machine learning and difficult to account for when applying standard empirical risk minimization. In this work, we propose a novel method to alleviate these problems that we call odd-$k$-out learning (OKO), which minimizes the cross-entropy error for sets rather than for single examples. This naturally allows the model to capture correlations across data examples and achieves both better accuracy and calibration, especially in limited training data and class-imbalanced regimes. Perhaps surprisingly, OKO often yields better calibration even when training with hard labels and dropping any additional calibration parameter tuning, such as temperature scaling. We demonstrate this in extensive experimental analyses and provide a mathematical theory to interpret our findings. We emphasize that OKO is a general framework that can be easily adapted to many settings and a trained model can be applied to single examples at inference time, without significant run-time overhead or architecture changes.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 61% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)