Paper:
The uncertainty estimation is critical in real-world decision making applications, especially when distributional shift between the training and test data are prevalent. Many calibration methods in the literature have been proposed to improve the predictive uncertainty of DNNs which are generally not well-calibrated. However, none of them is specifically designed to work properly under domain shift condition. In this paper, we propose Unsupervised Temperature Scaling (UTS) as a robust calibration method to domain shift. It exploits unlabeled test samples instead of the training one to adjust the uncertainty prediction of deep models towards the test distribution. UTS utilizes a novel loss function, weighted NLL, which allows unsupervised calibration. We evaluate UTS on a wide range of model-datasets to show the possibility of calibration without labels and demonstrate the robustness of UTS compared to other methods (e.g., TS, MC-dropout, SVI, ensembles) in shifted domains.

Review:
The authors present an algorithm for postprocessing neural networks to ensure calibration under domain shift.
Calibration under domain shift is an interesting challenge that has been receiving increasing attention and tackling this in an unsupervised manner is an interesting approach. However, I have 2 major concerns regarding the approach presented by the authors.
What makes calibration under domain shift useful and appealing is that the model is then robust against any changes in the test distribution that can occur during the life cycle of a model. These often include erroneous/samples (corresponding to truly OOD samples), but also gradual domain shift, where the test distribution continuously moves away from the training distribution (e.g. due to a continuous drift in user behaviour/change in customer base) or unforeseen changes. My first major concern is regarding the requirements for UTS, which render this approach not very useful in many of these practical  applications: UTS first requires knowledge of and access to the test distribution; in addition it assumes that the distribution of the labels remains unaffected under domain shift. These assumptions are violated in the practical applications described above, in particular those where a gradual, continuous domain shift occurs - in this case, access to the test distribution is difficult since it changes continuously. On this note I also would have liked to see some analysis on how performance depends on the number of samples that are available from the test set, since in practice this might be substantially smaller than the full test set used.
Furthermore, I find the assumption that the distribution of labels remains unchanged problematic (q_s(y) = q_t(y) and even q_s(y|x)=q_t(y|x)): once sufficiently out-of-domain, labels become meaningless and predictions for truly OOD samples should have maximum entropy. Even for small domain shifts in practical applications it is not clear why q_s(y|x)=q_t(y|x) should hold and it would have been useful to see a discussion and some robustness analysis on this.
Finally,  the algorithm requires re-calibration whenever the test distribution changes, which in practice is  often not clear (and part of the reason why dealing with predictions under domain shift is so challenging). 
In addition to doubts on practical applicability, my second major concern is regarding the depth of the evaluation.
First, while the authors present some comparisons to probabilistic methods, I am missing a crucial comparison to Evidential Deep Learning (Sensoy et al, NeurIPS 2018), which results in far superior performance than deep ensembles, SVI or dropout. Importantly, the comparisons to probabilistic approaches presented by the authors are very limited. The big advantage of those approaches is that, once trained, no further recalibration is necessary and well calibrated predictions can be made for any level of domain shift, whereas UTS requires a recalibration step for very level of domain shift. That is why I think it is crucial to not only show one arbitrarily picked level of domain shift for each dataset/perturbation, but calibration across all levels of domain shift, as for TS and TS-Target; since no recalibration is required for those probabilistic approaches 
 this is very straight-forward and would be very informative - especially since e.g Figure 5 shows that UTS has only very minor advantages over TS in many settings. 
I appreciate that the authors report some performance in terms of ECE in the supplement, but I think it would be very informative to report performance in terms of ECE for all domain-shift experiments: The Brier score conflates accuracy with calibration (see eg the 2 component decomposition), whereas ECE directly quantifies calibration and is hence easier to interpret and arguably the more meaningful measure when quantifying calibration. 
Minor:  I find the manuscript lacks clarity. Aspects such as the definition of calibration as well as implications and interpretation of Proposition 1 should be described in more detail in the manuscript.