Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Uncertainty and Energy based Loss Guided Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Semi-supervised segmentation improves by adding a per-pixel data-uncertainty loss and an energy-based loss to CPCL's union/intersection pseudo-label loss, with mIoU gains reported on PASCAL VOC and Cityscapes.

desk verdict A straightforward combination of known losses whose claimed consistent gains are contradicted by its own tables; the method may work but the evidence as presented is not convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01640 v1 pith:L3TPGV4M submitted 2025-01-03 cs.CV

Rini Smita Thakur , Vinod K. Kurmi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedsemanticsegmentationaleatoricuncertaintyenergy-basedmodelpseudo-labelrefinementintersection-unionpseudolabelsDeepLabv3+data
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Labeling every pixel in an image is expensive, so semi-supervised segmentation tries to learn from a few labeled images plus many unlabeled ones. This paper proposes DUEB, a training loss that adds two terms to the CPCL baseline: a data-uncertainty (aleatoric) loss that measures how noisy the network's own per-pixel logits are, and an energy-based loss that treats the classifier as a generative energy model. The authors claim that combining these losses with CPCL's intersection/union pseudo-labels improves mean intersection-over-union (mIoU) on PASCAL VOC and Cityscapes at every labeled-data partition for ResNet-50 except one, and for ResNet-101 at all partitions. The largest relative gains occur when labeled data is scarcest, at the 1/16 partition.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the total loss in Eq. 17, which adds two terms to the CPCL detection loss $L_{det}$. First, the aleatoric uncertainty loss (Eq. 12) uses a variance layer appended to DeepLabv3+ that outputs a per-pixel variance $\sigma_x$; it computes Monte-Carlo (T=10) distorted logits and penalizes the difference between undistorted and distorted cross-entropy plus an exponential variance penalty. Second, the energy loss (Eq. 16) is the LogSumExp over class logits, which, following the identity that a classifier can be reinterpreted as an energy-based model, encourages the model to assign high density to data. Each loss is applied on the conservative branch with intersection pseudo-labels, on the progressive branch with union pseudo-labels, and (for the energy loss) on ground-truth supervision; the two branches and their union/intersection pseudo-label generation come directly from CPCL.

What would settle it

Retrain CPCL and DUEB from the same initializations with at least five seeds on PASCAL VOC 1/16 and Cityscapes 1/16, using the exact same augmentation, learning schedule, and code base; if the mean DUEB mIoU does not exceed retrained CPCL by more than the seed standard deviation, the central claim fails. Alternatively, an ablation that removes only the two new terms while keeping the variance layer should show a drop larger than the seed noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the total loss $L_{total} = L_{det} + \gamma_{ale}(L^{c}_{ale}+L^{p}_{ale}) + \gamma_e(L^{c}_e + L^{p}_e)$ (Eq. 17) yields better semi-supervised segmentation than the CPCL baseline, with both hyperparameters set to 1. The aleatoric loss (Eq. 12) makes the network output a per-pixel variance $\sigma_x$ alongside logits, then computes cross-entropy on original logits and on logits distorted by Gaussian noise $\epsilon_t \sim N(0,\sigma_x)$, penalizing the difference plus an exponential variance term $e^{\sigma^2}-1$. The energy loss (Eq. 16) maximizes the LogSumExp of the logits, which is equivalent to minimizing the free energy of a joint energy-based model. On PASCAL VOC with ResNet-50, DUEB reaches 75.94 vs 75.30 mIoU at 1/2 labeled data and 72.41 vs 71.66 at 1/16; on Cityscapes it reaches 77.85 vs 76.98 at 1/4, 76.16 vs 74.60 at 1/8, and 72.38 vs 69.92 at 1/16, while at 1/2 it drops slightly (77.58 vs 78.17). With the ResNet-101 backbone the paper reports outperforming all compared state-of-the-art methods at every partition.

Load-bearing premise

The paper attributes the mIoU gains to the new losses, but because the CPCL baseline numbers are taken from the original publication rather than retrained in the same pipeline and no multiple-seed runs or error bars are reported, gains under 1 mIoU point could be run-to-run variation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, existing semi-supervised segmentation networks can be upgraded by adding a variance output layer and the two loss terms, with no new data or architectural change beyond that.
  • The method gives the largest mIoU gains when labeled data is scarce, making it relevant to annotation-limited domains such as medical imaging or autonomous driving.
  • The energy loss provides a generative interpretation for a discriminative segmenter, which could improve robustness and calibration beyond mIoU.
  • The gains at the 1/2 Cityscapes partition are negative relative to CPCL, so the benefit is not uniform across all label regimes.
  • The proposed framework is presented as generic and applicable to other semi-supervised segmentation networks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported improvements over CPCL are mostly under 1 mIoU point on PASCAL VOC and are compared against CPCL numbers taken from the original paper rather than a re-trained baseline; without multiple seeds or error bars, part of the gain could be training noise.
  • A natural test is to run DUEB against CPCL re-trained in the identical pipeline with several seeds; if the gap disappears or reverses, the claim of consistent improvement would weaken.
  • The aleatoric loss can be interpreted as a form of logit regularization that might transfer to other dense prediction tasks such as depth estimation or detection.
  • The energy loss's LogSumExp term is essentially a softmax-denominator regularizer; it would be worth testing whether simpler penalties (e.g., entropy) reproduce the same gains, which would suggest the mechanism is not specifically generative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DUEB, a semi-supervised semantic segmentation method built on the Conservative Progressive Collaborative Learning (CPCL) framework, adding an aleatoric (data) uncertainty loss and an energy-based loss to the standard intersection/union pseudo-label losses. The total loss in Eq. (17) combines detection loss, aleatoric loss, and energy loss, and the paper reports results on PASCAL VOC and Cityscapes at 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 partition protocols with ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 backbones. The central claim is that DUEB outperforms state-of-the-art methods, with consistent mIoU gains over CPCL. The paper also includes an ablation study and comparisons against several published baselines.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by showing that adding train-time aleatoric uncertainty and a simple energy-based term to pseudo-label supervision improves semi-supervised semantic segmentation. The method is built on a strong existing baseline (CPCL), and the authors provide a code link and experiments across two standard benchmarks at multiple partition ratios, which is helpful for reproducibility. However, the significance is substantially diminished by internal numerical contradictions: several of the paper's own tables contradict the claim of state-of-the-art performance, and the ablation table is unreadable. The absence of error bars and the reliance on baseline numbers copied from prior work also make the reported gains hard to interpret. The conceptual framing of the energy loss as 'generative modeling' is not backed by the equations, which describe a log-sum-exp confidence maximization.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 4 and Table 5] The claim that 'DUEB with ResNet-101 backbone outperforms the state-of-the-art methods for all partition protocols' is directly contradicted by the reported numbers. On PASCAL VOC, Unimatch ResNet-101 achieves 76.5 at 1/16 and 77.0 at 1/8, while DUEB ResNet-101 achieves 74.13 and 76.70, respectively; on Cityscapes at 1/2, Unimatch ResNet-101 achieves 79.5 versus DUEB's 79.47. The sentence also incorrectly cites Tables 1 and 3, which contain only ResNet-50 results, rather than Tables 4 and 5. This overstatement must be corrected and the claim qualified to the configurations where the comparison actually holds.
  2. [Table 2] The ablation table is not interpretable as printed: the checkmarks and numeric values are arranged without a clear row/column layout, and some cells (e.g., the PASCAL VOC 1/4 entry with both losses checked) appear missing. The reader cannot verify the stated conclusion that the combination of uncertainty and energy losses outperforms either component alone. The table must be redrawn with explicit rows for each loss configuration and columns for each dataset and partition.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 1–5] The paper reports no error bars, no multiple-seed runs, and the CPCL baseline numbers are taken from the original CPCL paper rather than re-trained under the same pipeline. Several reported gains over CPCL are below one mIoU point (e.g., PASCAL 1/2: 75.94 vs 75.30; Cityscapes 1/4: 77.85 vs 76.98), which is within plausible run-to-run variation in this setting. Without repeated trials, the causal claim that the proposed losses are responsible for the improvement is not supported by the evidence presented.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (12)] The aleatoric loss L_ale is under-specified. The expression '(-ELU * diff) * lu' is unclear, especially with regard to how the exponential linear unit is applied to a potentially negative 'diff' and how the resulting value multiplies the cross-entropy term; the variance term 'e^{σ2} - 1' also has an ambiguous role in the total. Since this loss is one of the two central contributions, the equation must be defined unambiguously, including all indices, the Monte-Carlo average over T, and the exact inputs (logits, variance, and pseudo-label) used for the conservative and progressive branches.
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (15)–(16)] The energy loss L_e = LogSumExp(fθ(x)|y) is the negative of the energy function E_θ(x) defined in Eq. (15). Minimizing this loss therefore maximizes the log-sum-exp of logits, which is essentially a confidence-maximization term; the paper does not train the partition function or sample from the implicit energy distribution over inputs. Consequently, the claim that the loss provides 'generative modeling' and learns the joint distribution p(x, y) is not supported by the equations. The authors should either provide the actual EBM training mechanism (e.g., contrastive divergence, noise-contrastive estimation) or substantially moderate the claimed role of the energy term.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] There are several typographical and grammatical issues: 'availaible', 'pseudolabel' vs 'pseudo label' inconsistently, 'enormous pixel-label annotated data', and the sentence fragment 'The other constraint with the SS segmentation methods is the discriminative and deterministic framework, which fails to capture the generative distribution.' These should be cleaned up.
  2. [§4.2] The sentence 'The best performance is achieved by the vehicle group, which is 19.77% over the supervised CPCL baseline and 4.69% over CPCL' lacks a clear baseline reference and appears to conflate percentage-point differences with percentages; the numbers should be rechecked and stated consistently.
  3. [§3.5, Eq. (17)] Eq. (17) refers to 'the loss using the union and intersection label as pesdueo label defined in Eq.', with the equation number missing. The reference should be completed.
  4. [Tables 1 and 3] The class-group abbreviations in the table headers are defined in the caption but the captions themselves are overly long and some definitions are grammatically incomplete; additionally, the table footnotes mix 'ANIMAL' and 'Animal' capitalization inconsistently.
  5. [§1, Introduction] The contribution bullet 'Enhance the SS prediction by energy-based loss to incorporate generative modeling using the discriminative function' is vague and should be made more specific after the energy-loss issue in the major comments is resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proposed losses are taken from external prior work and evaluated against external benchmarks; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to its inputs. The aleatoric loss Lale (Eq. 12) is explicitly traced to Kendall and Gal [19] with implementation guidance from [17]; the self-citation [17] is an application of that external formulation and is not load-bearing, since the underlying heteroscedastic aleatoric loss is independently established in [19]. The energy loss Le = LogSumExp_y(f_theta(x)|y) (Eq. 16) is the standard energy-based-model objective from Grathwohl et al. [13], an external source, and the paper applies it as a regularizer rather than deriving it from its own results. The pseudo-label base is CPCL [11], an external method, and the union/intersection supervision (Eqs. 6-9) is adopted from that baseline. No parameter in the total loss (Eq. 17) is fitted to the reported benchmark numbers: gamma_ale and gamma_e are both set to 1, and other hyperparameters follow the CPCL protocol. Reported comparisons use public PASCAL VOC and Cityscapes benchmarks; copying CPCL numbers from [11] is a reproducibility weakness, and the absence of error bars plus internally inconsistent SOTA statements are correctness risks, not circularity. The observation that the energy loss is a form of logit/confidence maximization is a framing issue, not an equivalence of output to input. No load-bearing step reduces to its own definition or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework adds a variance output layer to DeepLabv3+ and reuses well-known loss components. The only new quantities are the specific loss formula in Eq. 12 and its combination with the energy loss, both of which depend on the listed hyperparameters and inherited pseudo-label weighting assumptions. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_int, gamma_uni = not stated in main text
    Hyperparameters weighting the intersection and union pseudo-label losses in Eq. 9; values are not reported, presumably inherited from CPCL or tuned on validation.
  • gamma_ale, gamma_e = 1
    Weights for the aleatoric and energy losses in Eq. 17, set to 1 in Section 3.5 without sensitivity analysis.
  • T (Monte Carlo samples) = 10
    Number of Gaussian noise samples in Eq. 12, chosen by hand and used for both datasets.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Union-intersection pseudo-labels with dynamic confidence weighting inherit CPCL's pseudo-label quality assumptions.
    Section 3.2 relies on w_i^u and the disagreement indicator I from CPCL [11]; if these weights do not reflect pseudo-label reliability, the new losses reinforce wrong labels.
  • domain assumption The aleatoric variance loss (Eq. 12) is a valid training objective for per-pixel uncertainty.
    Taken from Kendall and Gal [19] and Joshi et al. [17], but the reformulation with ELU and e^{sigma^2} is new and unproven; if the gradient is mis-scaled, the variance branch may not reduce uncertainty.
  • domain assumption A classifier's LogSumExp logits can be used as an energy loss to improve generalization.
    From Grathwohl et al. [13] and Zhao et al. [45]; in this paper it reduces to confidence maximization, and its benefit for semi-supervised segmentation is empirical rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Standard self-training assumption: pseudo-labels from a partially trained network help more than they hurt.
    The whole pseudo-labeling approach relies on this; the paper does not test the confirmation-bias boundary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty and Energy based Loss Guided Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3TPGV4M

@misc{pith2026250101640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty and Energy based Loss Guided Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3TPGV4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01640}
}
read the original abstract

Semi-supervised (SS) semantic segmentation exploits both labeled and unlabeled images to overcome tedious and costly pixel-level annotation problems. Pseudolabel supervision is one of the core approaches of training networks with both pseudo labels and ground-truth labels. This work uses aleatoric or data uncertainty and energy based modeling in intersection-union pseudo supervised network.The aleatoric uncertainty is modeling the inherent noise variations of the data in a network with two predictive branches. The per-pixel variance parameter obtained from the network gives a quantitative idea about the data uncertainty. Moreover, energy-based loss realizes the potential of generative modeling on the downstream SS segmentation task. The aleatoric and energy loss are applied in conjunction with pseudo-intersection labels, pseudo-union labels, and ground-truth on the respective network branch. The comparative analysis with state-of-the-art methods has shown improvement in performance metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Refinement of pseudolabel with aleatoric uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block Diagram of proposed uncertainty and energy loss based framework with pseudolabels module for semi-supervised seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Segmentation Results of Cityscapes dataset (partition protocol:1/8) Left:Input Middle:Predictions of DUEB Right:Ground-truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges

    Moloud Abdar, Farhad Pourpanah, Sadiq Hussain, Dana Rezazadegan, Li Liu, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, Paul Fieguth, Xiaochun Cao, Abbas Khosravi, U Rajendra Acharya, et al. A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Informa- tion Fusion, 76:243–297, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Uncertainty esti- mation based adversarial attack in multi-class classification

    Ismail Alarab and Simant Prakoonwit. Uncertainty esti- mation based adversarial attack in multi-class classification. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(1):1519–1536, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Source-free domain adaptive fundus image seg- mentation with denoised pseudo-labeling

    Cheng Chen, Quande Liu, Yueming Jin, Qi Dou, and Pheng- Ann Heng. Source-free domain adaptive fundus image seg- mentation with denoised pseudo-labeling. In Marleen de Bruijne, Philippe C. Cattin, St ´ephane Cotin, Nicolas Padoy, Stefanie Speidel, Yefeng Zheng, and Caroline Essert, editors, Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interven- tion – MIC...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018. 2, 3, 5

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision

    Xiaokang Chen, Yuhui Yuan, Gang Zeng, and Jingdong Wang. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2613–2622, 2021. 2, 8

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Uncertainty estimation in deep neu- ral networks for dermoscopic image classification

    Marc Combalia, Ferran Hueto, Susana Puig, Josep Malvehy, and Veronica Vilaplana. Uncertainty estimation in deep neu- ral networks for dermoscopic image classification. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 744–745, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 3213–3223, 2016. 1

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3213–3223, 2016. 6

    2016

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    The pascal visual object classes challenge: A retrospective

    Mark Everingham, SM Ali Eslami, Luc Van Gool, Christo- pher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes challenge: A retrospective. In- ternational journal of computer vision , 111:98–136, 2015. 6

    2015

  2. [10]

    Camouflaged object detec- tion

    Deng-Ping Fan, Ge-Peng Ji, Guolei Sun, Ming-Ming Cheng, Jianbing Shen, and Ling Shao. Camouflaged object detec- tion. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2774–2784, 2020. 1

    2020

  3. [11]

    Conservative-progressive collab- orative learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Siqi Fan, Fenghua Zhu, Zunlei Feng, Yisheng Lv, Mingli Song, and Fei-Yue Wang. Conservative-progressive collab- orative learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  4. [12]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation needs strong, varied perturbations

    Geoff French, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, Michal Mackiewicz, and Graham Finlayson. Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation needs strong, varied perturbations. BMVC, 2020. 8

    2020

  5. [13]

    Your classifier is secretly an energy based model and you should treat it like one

    Will Grathwohl, Kuan-Chieh Wang, J ¨orn-Henrik Jacobsen, David Duvenaud, Mohammad Norouzi, and Kevin Swersky. Your classifier is secretly an energy based model and you should treat it like one. ICLR, 2019. 2, 5

    2019

  6. [14]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 8

    2016

  7. [15]

    Semicvt: Semi-supervised convolutional vi- sion transformer for semantic segmentation

    Huimin Huang, Shiao Xie, Lanfen Lin, Ruofeng Tong, Yen- Wei Chen, Yuexiang Li, Hong Wang, Yawen Huang, and Yefeng Zheng. Semicvt: Semi-supervised convolutional vi- sion transformer for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat-...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Adversarial learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Wei-Chih Hung, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Yan-Ting Liou, Yen-Yu Lin, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Adversarial learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07934, 2018. 4

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Data uncertainty guided noise-aware preprocessing of fingerprints

    Indu Joshi, Ayush Utkarsh, Riya Kothari, Vinod K Kurmi, Antitza Dantcheva, Sumantra Dutta Roy, and Prem Kumar Kalra. Data uncertainty guided noise-aware preprocessing of fingerprints. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2021. 5

    2021

  10. [18]

    Guided collaborative training for pixel-wise semi-supervised learning

    Zhanghan Ke, Di Qiu, Kaican Li, Qiong Yan, and Ryn- son WH Lau. Guided collaborative training for pixel-wise semi-supervised learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIII 16 , pages 429–445. Springer,

    2020

  11. [19]

    What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Alex Kendall and Yarin Gal. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2, 5

    2017

  12. [20]

    Pruning-guided curriculum learning for semi- supervised semantic segmentation

    Heejo Kong, Gun-Hee Lee, Suneung Kim, and Seong- Whan Lee. Pruning-guided curriculum learning for semi- supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 5914–5923, 2023. 8

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mitigating uncertainty of classi- fier for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Shanu Kumar, Vinod Kumar Kurmi, Praphul Singh, and Vinay P Namboodiri. Mitigating uncertainty of classi- fier for unsupervised domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00727, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kurmi, Venkatesh K

    Vinod K. Kurmi, Venkatesh K. Subramanian, and Vinay P. Namboodiri. Domain impression: A source data free domain adaptation method. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 615–625, January 2021. 2

    2021

  15. [23]

    An overview of mixing augmentation methods and augmentation strategies

    Dominik Lewy and Jacek Ma ´ndziuk. An overview of mixing augmentation methods and augmentation strategies. Artifi- cial Intelligence Review, 56(3):2111–2169, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Semantic segmentation with generative models: Semi-supervised learning and strong out-of-domain generalization

    Daiqing Li, Junlin Yang, Karsten Kreis, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Semantic segmentation with generative models: Semi-supervised learning and strong out-of-domain generalization. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8296–8307,

    2021

  17. [25]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation under label noise via diverse learning groups

    Peixia Li, Pulak Purkait, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, Ma- jid Abdolshah, Ravi Garg, Hisham Husain, Chenchen Xu, Stephen Gould, Wanli Ouyang, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation under label noise via diverse learning groups. InProceedings of the IEEE/CV...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Diverse cotraining makes strong semi- supervised segmentor

    Yijiang Li, Xinjiang Wang, Lihe Yang, Litong Feng, Wayne Zhang, and Ying Gao. Diverse cotraining makes strong semi- supervised segmentor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09281 ,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    A general framework for uncertainty estimation in deep learn- ing

    Antonio Loquercio, Mattia Segu, and Davide Scaramuzza. A general framework for uncertainty estimation in deep learn- ing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 5(2):3153– 3160, 2020. 1

    2020

  20. [28]

    Uncertainty-aware pseudo-label and consistency for semi- supervised medical image segmentation

    Liyun Lu, Mengxiao Yin, Liyao Fu, and Feng Yang. Uncertainty-aware pseudo-label and consistency for semi- supervised medical image segmentation. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 79:104203, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  21. [29]

    A survey on uncer- tainty estimation in deep learning classification systems from a bayesian perspective

    Jos ´e Mena, Oriol Pujol, and Jordi Vitria. A survey on uncer- tainty estimation in deep learning classification systems from a bayesian perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 54(9):1–35, 2021. 3

    2021

  22. [30]

    Image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(7):3523– 3542, 2022

    Shervin Minaee, Yuri Boykov, Fatih Porikli, Antonio Plaza, Nasser Kehtarnavaz, and Demetri Terzopoulos. Image seg- mentation using deep learning: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(7):3523– 3542, 2022. 1

    2022

  23. [31]

    Deterministic neural net- works with appropriate inductive biases capture epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty

    Jishnu Mukhoti, Andreas Kirsch, Joost van Amersfoort, Philip HS Torr, and Yarin Gal. Deterministic neural net- works with appropriate inductive biases capture epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11582,

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training

    Yassine Ouali, C ´eline Hudelot, and Myriam Tami. Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with cross-consistency training. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12671–12681,

    2020

  25. [33]

    A survey on semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Adrian Pel ´aez-Vegas, Pablo Mesejo, and Juli ´an Luengo. A survey on semi-supervised semantic segmentation. arxiv,

  26. [34]

    Inconsistency- aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Yinghuan Shi, Jian Zhang, Tong Ling, Jiwen Lu, Yefeng Zheng, Qian Yu, Lei Qi, and Yang Gao. Inconsistency- aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing, 41(3):608–620, 2022. 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Inconsistency- aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation

    Yinghuan Shi, Jian Zhang, Tong Ling, Jiwen Lu, Yefeng Zheng, Qian Yu, Lei Qi, and Yang Gao. Inconsistency- aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing, 41(3):608–620, 2022. 3

    2022

  28. [36]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mean teachers are bet- ter role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets im- prove semi-supervised deep learning results

    Antti Tarvainen and Harri Valpola. Mean teachers are bet- ter role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets im- prove semi-supervised deep learning results. In I. Guyon, U. V on Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vish- wanathan, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances i...

    2017

  30. [38]

    Aleatoric un- certainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medi- cal image segmentation with convolutional neural networks

    Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Michael Aertsen, Jan Deprest, S´ebastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. Aleatoric un- certainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medi- cal image segmentation with convolutional neural networks. Neurocomputing, 338:34–45, 2019. 3

    2019

  31. [39]

    Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in trans- former for semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Haonan Wang, Qixiang Zhang, Yi Li, and Xiaomeng Li. Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in trans- former for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3627–3636, 2024. 3

    2024

  32. [40]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels

    Yuchao Wang, Haochen Wang, Yujun Shen, Jingjing Fei, Wei Li, Guoqiang Jin, Liwei Wu, Rui Zhao, and Xinyi Le. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4248–...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Revisiting weak-to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation

    Lihe Yang, Lei Qi, Litong Feng, Wayne Zhang, and Yinghuan Shi. Revisiting weak-to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7236–7246, 2023. 2, 8

    2023

  34. [42]

    Towards bridging the performance gaps of joint energy-based models

    Xiulong Yang, Qing Su, and Shihao Ji. Towards bridging the performance gaps of joint energy-based models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15732–15741, 2023. 6

    2023

  35. [43]

    Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation

    Lequan Yu, Shujun Wang, Xiaomeng Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation. In Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen,...

    2019

  36. [44]

    A survey of semi-and weakly supervised se- mantic segmentation of images

    Man Zhang, Yong Zhou, Jiaqi Zhao, Yiyun Man, Bing Liu, and Rui Yao. A survey of semi-and weakly supervised se- mantic segmentation of images. Artificial Intelligence Re- view, 53:4259–4288, 2020. 1

    2020

  37. [45]

    Joint energy-based models for semi-supervised classifica- tion

    Stephen Zhao, Jorn-Henrik Jacobsen, and Will Grathwohl. Joint energy-based models for semi-supervised classifica- tion. In ICML 2020 Workshop on Uncertainty and Robust- ness in Deep Learning, volume 1, 2020. 2, 5

    2020

  38. [46]

    S³mpl:semi-supervised semantic segmentation with mixed pseudo label

    Yan Zhou, Ruyi Jiao, Dongli Wang, and Haibin Zhou. S³mpl:semi-supervised semantic segmentation with mixed pseudo label. In 2022 37th Youth Academic Annual Con- ference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC) , pages 1158–1163, 2022. 2

    2022

  39. [47]

    Pseudoseg: Designing pseudo labels for semantic segmentation

    Yuliang Zou, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Chun-Liang Li, Xiao Bian, Jia-Bin Huang, and Tomas Pfister. Pseudoseg: Designing pseudo labels for semantic segmentation. In In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. 2

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.