Longbing Cao

Filippo Cenacchi, Longbing Cao, Runze Yang

Post-hoc calibration for time-series classification usually remaps output scores, but deployment decisions such as trust, abstention, and review depend on whether a confident prediction is supported by the current temporal signal. We address three time-series reliability gaps: identical confidence values can hide different temporal support, average calibration can miss false high-confidence errors, and output-space recalibration offers limited input-linked auditability. We introduce a validation-gated fixed-label reliability policy that keeps the backbone prediction unchanged while estimating whether it should be trusted. The method combines output-side cues with whole-sample spectral descriptors, including band energy, entropy, peak dominance, period support, and phase stability, to form a scalar reliability estimate and diagnostic band-level evidence. A validation gate enables spectral conditioning only when correctness ranking improves without breaching FalseConf@0.9 or AURC tolerances; otherwise it reverts to the safer output-space baseline. Across eight heterogeneous UCR/UEA datasets, eight time-series backbone families, and standard recalibrators, the unconstrained method improves fixed-label selective-reliability metrics on the matched evaluation subset, raising Corr-AURC from 0.693 to 0.779. The validation-gated policy further improves Corr-AURC to 0.786 and reduces FalseConf@0.9 to 0.094. These results suggest that reliability estimation for time-series classifiers benefits from bundling output confidence with spectral evidence, while validation gating prevents unsupported spectral conditioning.

Filippo Cenacchi, Longbing Cao, Runze Yang

Calibration is usually evaluated in aggregate, but the most dangerous failures are often local: predictions that remain highly confident despite being wrong. We study this failure mode as false-confidence concentration, the extent to which confident errors occupy compact, discoverable regions of prediction space. We introduce FALCON-Discover, a post-hoc, model-agnostic framework that ranks predictions using discrepancy signals from confidence, local support, neighborhood agreement, and perturbation stability. Across seven binary tabular datasets, four seeds, five-fold cross-fitting, and strong learners including XGBoost and CatBoost, we find that false-confidence concentration is recurrent but regime-dependent. At the main confidence threshold, discrepancy-based ranking substantially outperforms the strongest validation-selected calibration or trust-scoring baseline in the strongest regimes, while raw confidence recovers little dangerous-error mass. The best detector varies across datasets: learned discrepancy is strongest when multiple cues must be combined, whereas stability-centered ranking works best when local decisional fragility dominates. These results show that dangerous overconfidence is better treated as a family-level discovery problem than as a single-score calibration problem, and motivate calibration strategies that explicitly target regions where confidence, support, and stability diverge.