A fundamental quantity in machine learning is the optimal performance achievable by any model on a given task. Estimating this quantity allows us to distinguish the irreducible part of the error from a deficiency of the model, telling us how much room for improvement remains. Recent work has shown that the Bayes error, or equivalently the optimal accuracy, can be estimated from soft labels in binary classification. However, accuracy is often a poor summary of performance in settings with severe class imbalance or noisy annotations, where metrics such as the balanced error rate (BER) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) are more appropriate. We address this gap with two complementary contributions. (i) Estimation. We propose soft-label-based estimators for the optimal BER and AUC. We first consider the clean setting in which true soft labels and the class prior are known, and then extend the estimators to a more realistic setting in which the class prior is unknown and the observed soft labels are corrupted by an unknown order-preserving transformation, possibly followed by additive noise. In the latter setting, we approximately recover the clean soft labels via isotonic regression with auxiliary hard labels, estimate the class prior with a clipped mean of the hard labels, and derive finite-sample error bounds for the resulting plug-in estimators. (ii) Evaluation. Since the optimum is unobservable on real datasets, evaluating any such estimator is itself nontrivial. We extend the FeeBee framework, originally proposed for evaluating Bayes-error estimators, to the optimal BER and AUC. The resulting procedure provides practical evaluation scores without requiring knowledge of the optimum, and applies to any estimator of the optimal BER or AUC, not only our proposed ones. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate both the estimators and the evaluation procedure.
LLM-based social simulation is a promising complement to traditional methods such as surveys and behavioral experiments. A core question is how to evaluate the fidelity of LLM-simulated human behavior and optimize LLMs toward it. Prevailing practice evaluates by accuracy, checking whether the model selects the single response observed from a human, and trains the LLM to reproduce this hard label. However, human behavior is inherently subjective: the same person in the same situation may reasonably act differently, so an observed response is only one draw from an underlying response distribution, rendering accuracy-based evaluation unreliable and hard-label training misleading. To address these problems, we first introduce the subjectivity coefficient, an entropy-based quantity distinguishing objective tasks such as coding from subjective ones such as social simulation, and use it to systematically analyze how accuracy-based evaluation and hard-label training fail as subjectivity grows. Based on the subjectivity coefficient, we propose Subjectivity-Adaptive soft-Label Training (SALT): it pools observed outputs from semantically nearby inputs into soft distributional labels, with an aggregation radius adapted to the estimated subjectivity of each input; in the near-objective limit the neighborhood shrinks, so SALT naturally falls back to standard single-label training. Moreover, since existing datasets record only single observed responses and cannot support distributional evaluation, we construct SUBJSIM, a benchmark of 19,300 contexts covering 193 annotators and 100 subjective questions. Since real-world data typically provide only a single observation per input, our experiments train models from single observed outputs while evaluating them against the full response distributions, verifying feasibility in realistic settings. Results on SUBJSIM demonstrate the advantages of our method.
This paper describes the BioSentinel team's participation in EXIST 2026 Task 2.2: Source Intention in Memes, part of the CLEF 2026 evaluation campaign. The task requires classifying the communicative intent behind memes as direct, judgemental, or no (non-sexist), under a Learning with Disagreement (Le-Wi-Di) paradigm that mandates both hard-label and soft-label (probability distribution) predictions. We present a text-centric approach built on xlm-roberta-base (270M parameters) trained with a composite loss function combining KL divergence on soft annotator distributions and weighted cross-entropy on hard labels. On the official test set, the system achieved an ICM-Soft-Norm of 0.3229 and ICM-Norm of 0.3778, with a hard F1-score of 0.4236, ranking 40th (out of 118 submissions) in the soft-soft evaluation and 49th (out of 187 submissions) in the hard-hard evaluation. We provide an analysis of the dataset characteristics, exploratory larger-architecture runs, and the role of annotator disagreement in shaping model design for subjective NLP tasks. Ablation results show that KL loss improves soft-label metrics, while CE loss improves hard-label accuracy. We also report a separate validation-set temperature analysis.
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.
Cell-type deconvolution, the task of estimating the proportions of constituent cell types in a heterogeneous biological sample, is a core problem in computational biology. Methods that rely on epigenetic marks such as DNA methylation typically operate on aggregated methylation estimates, discarding the pattern-level information carried by individual DNA reads. Existing read-level approaches that exploit this information are scarce, and all remain restricted to few-class settings; scaling them further is an open problem because, at scale, non-discriminative reads dominate and hard labels conflict with the many-to-many mapping between methylation patterns and cell types, preventing classifier convergence. To overcome this, we propose data-driven soft labels that estimate the conditional cell-type distribution for each read, and integrate this scheme into Syto, a new modular framework for read-level classification-based deconvolution. On a whole-body atlas of 39 human cell types, Syto reduces MSE by 2.56$\times$ over SoTA, with gains transferring to an out-of-distribution dataset spanning 16 tissues. Syto lays the foundation for modeling increasingly large cell-type panels, with improved applications in biology and healthcare. The proposed soft-labeling scheme is further translatable to any setting with a many-to-many signal-to-label mapping.
The variations in vocal effort range (e.g. whisper, soft, neutral, loud, shout) alter production and speech acoustics, reducing intelligibility and limiting the robustness of any subsequent speech technology. Classification is challenging since effort lies on a continuum, adjacent categories are easily confused, and labeled data remain scarce. Prior SSL approaches with wav2vec2, HuBERT, and AST improve performance on the AVID corpus but still suffer from boundary errors. In this study, we introduce WavLM for the first time in vocal effort classification and benchmark it against wav2vec2 and HuBERT. To address data scarcity, we conduct a systematic study of augmentation strategies, covering RIR convolution, additive noise, time masking, speed perturbation, band-limiting, MixUp, and CutMix. Augmentation consistently improves WavLM, with gains ranging from +0.6% to +1.8% absolute. We further propose Gaussian-neighbor soft labels, which further reduce near-boundary confusions by modeling the vocal effort continuum. Our best system, WavLM-BASE with gradual unfreezing, augmentation, and Gaussian-neighbor soft labels, achieves 78.2% mean accuracy, establishing a new state-of-the-art on AVID.
When annotators disagree, that disagreement can reflect epistemic uncertainty rather than simple label noise. We study hard-label delivery as an alternative to the usual choices of collapsing votes to a single label or training directly on the empirical soft-label distribution. We focus on two primary hard-label methods: multipass, which cycles through observed votes while keeping the dataset size fixed, and stochastic label sampling (SLS), which samples one label per example at the start of each epoch. On CIFAR-10H, we find that when only a small number of annotations per example is available, hard-label delivery improves over soft-label training, with larger improvements where the sparse empirical target is farther from the full annotator distribution. When full annotator distributions are available, both hard-label methods match soft-label training. We use deterministic control as an ablation of multipass and shuffled SLS as a control that breaks the example-to-distribution match. We also show that SLS and soft-label cross-entropy optimize the same expected objective. Hard-label delivery also converges to flatter basins, with supporting descriptive evidence from OOD detection on SVHN and CIFAR-100. Overall, these results suggest that multipass is a strong practical default when raw vote counts are available, while SLS offers a lightweight alternative that remains competitive when only a few votes per example are available and matches soft-label training when full annotator distributions are available.