ICPL generates pseudo-labels by clustering embeddings with KMeans, keeps only confident ones, and uses them to train class-incremental models without human labels, losing about 10 points versus supervised CIL but beating class-iNCD baselines by more than 5.
When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Ensuring the reliability and safety of automated decision-making is crucial. It is well-known that data distribution shifts in machine learning can produce unreliable outcomes. This paper proposes a new approach for measuring the reliability of predictions under distribution shifts. We analyze how the outputs of a trained neural network change using clustering to measure distances between outputs and class centroids. We propose this distance as a metric to evaluate the confidence of predictions under distribution shifts. We assign each prediction to a cluster with centroid representing the mean softmax output for all correct predictions of a given class. We then define a safety threshold for a class as the smallest distance from an incorrect prediction to the given class centroid. We evaluate the approach on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets using a Convolutional Neural Network and a Vision Transformer, respectively. The results show that our approach is consistent across these data sets and network models, and indicate that the proposed metric can offer an efficient way of determining when automated predictions are acceptable and when they should be deferred to human operators given a distribution shift.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CV 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Unsupervised Incremental Learning Using Confidence-Based Pseudo-Labels
ICPL generates pseudo-labels by clustering embeddings with KMeans, keeps only confident ones, and uses them to train class-incremental models without human labels, losing about 10 points versus supervised CIL but beating class-iNCD baselines by more than 5.