Engineering Perspective· 2026Q2
Reliability and Calibration Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Aircraft Recognition in Remote-Sensing Imagery
- 1citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Deep learning models trained with longer schedules improved performance (e.g., ResNet50, MobileNetV3-Large) but calibration methods like temperature scaling, not accuracy, determined model ranking and significantly reduced overconfident wrong predictions by 25-50%.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Longer training schedules improved ResNet50 and MobileNetV3-Large performance, but not EfficientNet-B0.
- EfficientNet-B0 and ResNet50 achieved similar top-1 accuracy (~0.98) after training, outperforming MobileNetV3-Large.
- Model ranking varied significantly depending on the calibration estimator used (equal-width vs. equal-mass expected calibration error).
- Temperature scaling reduced wrong predictions above 0.95 confidence by 25-50% across all models, without impacting accuracy.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Aircraft recognition in remote-sensing imagery is usually reported through detection or classification accuracy. Accuracy alone says nothing about how confident a model is when it is wrong, or how much of an apparent architectural advantage comes from the training budget rather than from the architecture. This study reports a reliability and calibration analysis on the MAR20 benchmark under a complete two-factor design. YOLOv8n and YOLOv8s were trained for aircraft detection, and MobileNetV3-Large, EfficientNet-B0 and ResNet50 were each trained under two training protocols across five fixed seeds, giving thirty classification runs. Classification is evaluated on ground-truth crops and therefore describes an oracle-crop setting rather than an end-to-end pipeline. The effect of the training protocol proved to depend on the architecture and to be of the same order as the differences between the architectures themselves: the longer schedule improved ResNet50 and MobileNetV3-Large on every seed, while EfficientNet-B0 was not separated from its own baseline. Once the protocol was held fixed, EfficientNet-B0 and ResNet50 both reached approximately 0.98 top-1 accuracy and could not be separated by any paired test at either the sample level or the seed level, although both separated from MobileNetV3-Large. Model ranking also depended on the calibration estimator, because the highest equal-width bin holds over 90 percent of the test crops: after temperature scaling, equal-width expected calibration error favored EfficientNet-B0 and equal-mass expected calibration error favored ResNet50. Temperature scaling left accuracy unchanged in all thirty runs while reducing wrong predictions issued above 0.95 confidence by between a quarter and a half. Code, configurations and per-run outputs are archived.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Engineering Perspective, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionComputer Science