2022
DOI: 10.1109/tpami.2021.3085983
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Confidence Estimation via Auxiliary Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Neural language models, such as, e.g., models for machine translation, risk to be miscalibrated, too (Kumar and Sarawagi, 2019). Various remedies for miscalibration have been proposed and explored in the literature: modification of the loss-function (Moon et al, 2020); coupling and training of a complementary network to predict a prediction's reliability, that is, its empirical likelihood of being correct (Corbière et al, 2019); simultaneous training of an entire ensemble of deep neural networks (Lakshminarayanan et al, 2017); model distillation . Some pre-trained Transformers have, however, been claimed to be reasonably well calibrated.…”
Section: Related Work Accuracy and Consistency Of Nlms' Factual Kno...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neural language models, such as, e.g., models for machine translation, risk to be miscalibrated, too (Kumar and Sarawagi, 2019). Various remedies for miscalibration have been proposed and explored in the literature: modification of the loss-function (Moon et al, 2020); coupling and training of a complementary network to predict a prediction's reliability, that is, its empirical likelihood of being correct (Corbière et al, 2019); simultaneous training of an entire ensemble of deep neural networks (Lakshminarayanan et al, 2017); model distillation . Some pre-trained Transformers have, however, been claimed to be reasonably well calibrated.…”
Section: Related Work Accuracy and Consistency Of Nlms' Factual Kno...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We first present the adaptation results on the task of GTAV → Cityscapes in TABLE 1, with comparisons to the baseline model [31] as well as the state-of-the-art DA approaches [35], [36], [38], [40], and the best results are highlighted in bold. Overall, our SePiCo (ProtoCL/BankCL/DistCL) yield a leading result among comparison methods [29], [34], [40], [62]. Particularly, we observe: (i) SePiCo (DistCL) achieves 61.0% mIoU, outperforming the baseline model trained merely on source data by a large margin of +22.4% mIoU; (ii) Adversarial training methods, e.g., AdaptSeg [20], CLAN [23], SIM [25], FADA [26], can improve the transferability, but the effect is not as obvious as using self-training methods, e.g., Seg-Uncert.…”
Section: Comparisons With the State-of-the-artsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Another line of work harnesses self-training to promote the segmentation performance [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. By adopting confidence estimation [34], consistency regularization [35], or label denoising [36], the bias in pseudo labels could be relieved to some extent. While many works are already capable of establishing milestone performance, there is still much room for improvement beyond the current state-of-the-art.…”
Section: Memory Bankmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other words, previous works for MD do not take into account inputs lying outside of the training data distribution. Therefore, a single dataset such as CIFAR-10/100 [19] is sufficient to evaluate the MD performance of a model [20,21]. OsR and OoDD can be categorized as the same problem; however, the benchmark settings are slightly different in the literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%