DOI: 10.64808/engineeringperspective.1965542 ISSN: 2757-9077
Reliability and Calibration Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Aircraft Recognition in Remote-Sensing Imagery
Nilgün Şengöz 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.
More from our Archive
-
DOI: 10.1145/3845995 2026
A Survey of LLM-based Software Repair: Taxonomies, Design Paradigms, and Applications Boyang Yang, Zijian Cai, Fengling Liu, Bach Le, Lingming Zhang, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé, Yang Liu, Haoye Tian
-
DOI: 10.1108/jrim-02-2024-0074 2026
Cutting-edge research in social media and interactive marketing: a
review and research agenda James W Peltier, Andrew J Dahl, Lauren Drury, Tracy Khan
-
DOI: 10.1108/jkm-04-2021-0336 2026
Knowledge hiding – a systematic review and research
agenda Amitabh Anand, Florian Offergelt, Payal Anand
-
DOI: 10.1257/aer.20230448 2026
The Unequal Economic Consequences of Carbon Pricing Diego R. Känzig
-
DOI: 10.1017/awf.2026.10115 2026
Part 1: Assessment of upright restraint of broilers for head-only electrical stunning Troy J. Gibson, Georgina Limon, Shannon Campbell, Natalie Chancellor, Katharine A Fletcher, Paul Berry, Jeff Lines
-
DOI: 10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.86 2026
MadAgents Tilman Plehn, Daniel Schiller, Nikita Schmal
-
DOI: 10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.86-r2.0 2026
Codebase release 2.0 for MadAgents Tilman Plehn, Daniel Schiller, Nikita Schmal
-
DOI: 10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.85 2026
svPITE: A Python package for the state-vector-based probabilistic imaginary-time evolution algorithm Pascal Sievers, Satoshi Ejima
-
DOI: 10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.85-r1.1 2026
Codebase release 1.1 for svPITE Pascal Sievers, Satoshi Ejima
-
DOI: 10.1177/02611929261494117 2026
The World Medical Association’s
Declaration of Helsinki
and
Statement on Animal Use in Biomedical Research
: Why reliable and valid preclinical evidence and Natalie Anderson, Jane Kotzmann, Rachel Smith, Kathrin Herrmann