Miscalibration -- a mismatch between a model's confidence and its correctness -- of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) makes their predictions hard to rely on. Ideally, we want networks to be accurate, calibrated and confident. We show that, as opposed to the standard cross-entropy loss, focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) allows us to learn models that are already very well calibrated. When combined with temperature scaling, whilst preserving accuracy, it yields state-of-the-art calibrated models. We provide a thorough analysis of the factors causing miscalibration, and use the insights we glean from this to justify the empirically excellent performance of focal loss. To facilitate the use of focal loss in practice, we also provide a principled approach to automatically select the hyperparameter involved in the loss function. We perform extensive experiments on a variety of computer vision and NLP datasets, and with a wide variety of network architectures, and show that our approach achieves state-of-the-art calibration without compromising on accuracy in almost all cases.

Weaknesses: - It's not clear from the article if weight-decay was used for the experiments, on both the Cross Entropy and the Focal Loss. Weight-Decay has an non-negligeable effect on weight norms. The curves in the plot in Fig.2 e) would indicate the use of weight-decay but this is not mentioned in the text. Mind that some learning rate schedulers remove weight-decay for low learning rate values. Could the authors please clarify this aspect?

This paper was reviewed by 4 reviewers and there was unanimous agreement that the paper should be accepted (scores ranging from "marginally above threshold" to "clear accept"). I agree with the reviewers and recommend the paper be accepted. All 4 reviewers provided quite detailed suggestions for improvement in the paper and I strongly recommend that the authors carefully take these suggestions into account in revising the paper for the camera-ready version. In particular, please be sure to please take into account the reviewer suggestions (R1 and R2 specifically) on improving and clarifying the wording of your OOD claims. And please also be sure to include vanilla Focal Loss results in the main paper (R1, R2, R5).

Uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of real-world scenarios, where perfect information is rarely available. Humans naturally develop complex internal models to navigate incomplete data and effectively respond to unforeseen or partially observed events. In machine learning, Focal Loss is commonly used to reduce misclassification rates by emphasizing hard-to-classify samples. However, it does not guarantee well-calibrated predicted probabilities and may result in models that are overconfident or underconfident. High calibration error indicates a misalignment between predicted probabilities and actual outcomes, affecting model reliability. This research introduces a novel loss function called Focal Calibration Loss (FCL), designed to improve probability calibration while retaining the advantages of Focal Loss in handling difficult samples. By minimizing the Euclidean norm through a strictly proper loss, FCL penalizes the instance-wise calibration error and constrains bounds. We provide theoretical validation for proposed method and apply it to calibrate CheXNet for potential deployment in web-based health-care systems. Extensive evaluations on various models and datasets demonstrate that our method achieves SOTA performance in both calibration and accuracy metrics.

Miscalibration -- a mismatch between a model's confidence and its correctness -- of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) makes their predictions hard to rely on. Ideally, we want networks to be accurate, calibrated and confident. We show that, as opposed to the standard cross-entropy loss, focal loss (Lin et al., 2017) allows us to learn models that are already very well calibrated. When combined with temperature scaling, whilst preserving accuracy, it yields state-of-the-art calibrated models. We provide a thorough analysis of the factors causing miscalibration, and use the insights we glean from this to justify the empirically excellent performance of focal loss.