2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01231-1_25
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

WildDash - Creating Hazard-Aware Benchmarks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
140
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(142 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
140
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…regions with indiscernible semantic content. Invalid regions are closely related to the concept of negative test cases which was considered in [40]. However, invalid regions constitute intra-image entities and can co-exist with valid regions in the same image, whereas a negative test case refers to an entire image that should be treated as invalid.…”
Section: Uncertainty-aware Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…regions with indiscernible semantic content. Invalid regions are closely related to the concept of negative test cases which was considered in [40]. However, invalid regions constitute intra-image entities and can co-exist with valid regions in the same image, whereas a negative test case refers to an entire image that should be treated as invalid.…”
Section: Uncertainty-aware Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, invalid regions constitute intra-image entities and can co-exist with valid regions in the same image, whereas a negative test case refers to an entire image that should be treated as invalid. We build upon the evaluation of [40] for negative test cases and generalize it to be applied uniformly to all images in the evaluation set, whether they contain invalid regions or not. Our annotation and evaluation framework includes invalid regions in the set of evaluated pixels, but treats them differently from valid regions to account for the high uncertainty of their content.…”
Section: Uncertainty-aware Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two-head model performs better in most classic evaluation categories as well as in the negative category, however it has a lower meta average score. Table 6 explores influence of WildDash hazards [47] on the performance of the two models. The C-way multi-class model has a lower performance drop in most hazard categories.…”
Section: Comparing the Two-head And C-way Multi-class Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The described deficiencies emphasize the need for a more robust approach to dataset design. First, an ideal dataset should identify and target a set of explicit hazards for the particular domain [47]. Second (and more important), an ideal dataset should endorse open-set recognition paradigm [39] in order to promote detection of unforeseen hazards.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If one of the assignments can be predicted from the other, then all information conveyed by X is shared with Y and NMI(X; Y ) = 1. In addition to the Cityscapes dataset, we also compare the cluster assignments with the same 19 classes on the Wild-Dash dataset [96], which is designed to evaluate the robustness of segmentation methods under a wide range of conditions. Tab.…”
Section: Semantic Information In Clustersmentioning
confidence: 99%