Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

StableSleep: Source-Free Test-Time Adaptation for Sleep Staging with Lightweight Safety Rails

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lightweight recipe adapts sleep-staging models to new patients in real time, using only unlabeled EEG and no source data.

desk verdict A sensible TTA recipe for sleep staging whose central claim—gains over a frozen baseline—is never actually measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02982 v1 pith:RIAROQVV submitted 2025-09-03 cs.LG cs.AIcs.NEq-bio.NC

Hritik Arasu , Faisal R Jahangiri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.NEq-bio.NC
keywords test-timeadaptationsleepstagingentropyminimizationbatchnormalizationsingle-leadEEGstreaminginferencesource-freedomainSleep-EDFExpanded
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

The paper claims that a sleep-staging model can be adapted live, patient by patient, using only the unlabeled EEG stream, with no access to the original training data or to a new patient's expert labels. The recipe pairs two established ideas — refreshing batch-normalization statistics and minimizing prediction entropy in the normalization layers only — with two safety rails: an entropy gate that pauses updates on uncertain or artefactual 30-second windows, and an exponential-moving-average (EMA) reset that restores the model when drift builds up. On the Sleep-EDF Expanded corpus with single-lead EEG, the authors report consistent gains over a frozen baseline at seconds-level latency and minimal memory, with test accuracy 67.0%, weighted F1 70.1%, and κ = 0.394. If the claim holds, it matters because sleep-stage models are known to degrade on unseen montages, amplifiers, and populations, while re-collecting or centralizing data for retraining is often blocked by privacy; a source-free, label-free, streaming recipe is the missing practical piece for bedside or wearable deployment.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the two-rail adaptation loop wrapped around Tent. On each streaming micro-batch the model minimizes the entropy of its softmax output while touching only batch-norm affine parameters and running statistics; an entropy gate keeps an exponential-moving-average (EMA) of batch entropy and suppresses updates outside [hmin, hmax], so near-uniform or artefactual windows cannot corrupt the weights; an EMA snapshot of the adapted parameters acts as the reset anchor, restoring the model when a drift criterion fires. A causal median filter of width 5 smooths prediction flicker. The gate and reset are the load-bearing additions: they turn a memoryless entropy minimizer into a process th

What would settle it

Deploy the exact recipe, with validation-fixed hyperparameters untouched, on a different public sleep dataset (different montage or population) and compare the adapted model against the same frozen baseline; if the gains flip sign on the first external cohort, the claim of consistent deployment-ready gains is refuted. A cheaper check inside the corpus: re-split subjects and re-tune the gate bounds on the new validation set — if the optimal [hmin, hmax] moves with the split, the settings are not transferable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This is an engineering claim about what makes test-time adaptation safe in a clinical stream: entropy minimization alone is not enough, and the contribution is the wrapper that stabilizes it. A source-trained model with explicit batch-norm layers adapts on a new patient's stream by minimizing prediction entropy per micro-batch, touching only batch-norm affine parameters and running statistics, skipping updates when the EMA of batch entropy leaves [hmin, hmax], and resetting to an EMA snapshot when drift is detected. On Sleep-EDF Expanded (Fpz–Cz, 100 Hz, 30 s epochs; subject-disjoint; settings fixed from validation; test labels unused), the model reaches 67.0% accuracy and κ = 0.394 — stated

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that the adaptation settings fixed on the validation subjects — the entropy-gate bounds, the reset trigger, the batch-norm momentum, the smoothing width — carry over unchanged to any new patient; the paper gives no sensitivity analysis, so if those thresholds are patient-specific, the reported consistency could be an artifact of the chosen validation split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frozen staging models can be fielded on a new patient with no retraining, no source data, and no labels — the model adapts itself from the incoming EEG stream.
  • Adaptation runs at seconds-level latency with minimal memory, so it fits on laptop-class or bedside hardware rather than research clusters.
  • Because only batch-norm layers change, the wrapper is model-agnostic: any staging backbone with explicit batch-norm can carry the same rails.
  • Privacy is satisfied by construction: no patient labels and no source data ever enter the adaptation loop.
  • The gain profile is uneven by stage — N1 remains hardest with dominant N2/REM confusions — so deployments should still expect transitional epochs to be the weak spot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two rails use nothing sleep-specific, so the same wrapper should transfer to other streaming physiological classifiers (seizure detection, cardiac rhythm monitoring), where artefact windows and slow drift are the same failure modes — a connection the paper does not draw.
  • The absolute gate bounds [hmin, hmax] are a tuning liability; a gate defined relative to the running entropy distribution could plausibly remove the validation-tuning step, a testable variant the paper does not explore.
  • Because calibration stays at ECE ≈ 0.08, entropy minimization does not automatically buy trustworthy confidence; adding confidence-based deferral or post-hoc recalibration could convert the accuracy gains into clinically usable uncertainty.
  • The untested edge of the claim is external-cohort transfer: the recipe would be most valuable exactly where it is hardest, moving from Sleep-EDF to a different montage and population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes StableSleep, a streaming, source-free test-time adaptation (TTA) recipe for sleep staging. It combines BatchNorm (BN) statistic refresh with entropy minimization (Tent) and adds two safety rails: an entropy gate that pauses adaptation on uncertain windows and an EMA-based reset that reverts to a snapshot when drift is detected, followed by a causal median filter. The method is evaluated on Sleep-EDF Expanded using single-lead EEG (Fpz-Cz), with subject-disjoint splits and no test-label access. The authors claim consistent gains over a frozen baseline at seconds-level latency and minimal memory. The central weakness is that these claims are not supported by the reported evidence: Table 1 reports only adapted-model aggregate metrics, Section 4.5 is a qualitative summary, Sections 4.3 and 4.4 are explicit placeholders, and no frozen-baseline numbers or hyperparameter values are given.

Significance. If the headline claim were substantiated, StableSleep would be a practical and useful contribution: it is simple, privacy-preserving (no source data or patient calibration), and plausibly suitable for on-device use. The evaluation protocol has appropriate elements: subject-disjoint splits, a streaming constraint, and no test-label access. However, as presented, the empirical support is incomplete. The absolute metrics (test accuracy 67.0%, macro-F1 35.1%, Cohen's kappa 0.394) cannot be interpreted without a frozen-baseline comparison or numeric ablations. The paper provides no machine-checked proofs and no code release; reproducibility is promised only upon acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Table 1, Section 5] The abstract and Section 5 state 'consistent gains over a frozen baseline,' but no frozen-baseline metrics are reported anywhere. Table 1 shows only adapted-model aggregate metrics for validation and test; there is no baseline column, no per-subject deltas, no BN-only numeric comparison, and no Tent-without-gates comparison. Section 4.5 asserts that 'BN-only improves over frozen inference' and 'Tent adds further gains' without presenting any numbers. Because the central contribution is the improvement over the frozen model, these comparisons must be reported, including per-subject variability.
  2. [Section 4.5, Sections 4.3/4.4] The ablation study is described as a 'qualitative summary' with no numerical results, standard deviations, or paired significance tests. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 are explicitly placeholders ('added back'), so the calibration and stage-distribution analyses are not actually provided. This is more than a presentation issue: the safety rails (entropy gate, EMA reset) are core contributions, and the paper needs quantitative ablations (gate on/off, reset on/off, BN-only vs. Tent) plus subject-level spread to support the claimed benefits.
  3. [Section 3.4] The adaptation hyperparameters — entropy gate thresholds hmin/hmax, EMA reset criterion and momentum, BN running-statistics momentum, and causal median filter width — are defined but no values are given. Section 4.5 says these are fixed from validation, but no sensitivity analysis is reported. If the thresholds are validation-specific, the claimed consistency on test may not transfer; the authors should report the chosen values and a sensitivity sweep over them.
  4. [Section 5] The abstract and conclusion promise 'seconds-level latency and minimal memory,' but no inference latency or memory measurements are reported. Appendix B.1 gives training runtime only. Since deployment efficiency is part of the claimed contribution, the paper should include profiling results on the target hardware or at least characterize per-epoch computational cost.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 4.3/4.4] The headings 'Calibration (added back)' and 'Stage distribution (added back)' are placeholders; they should either be completed with actual analyses and figures or removed.
  2. [References] Several references are duplicated or incomplete: [1]/[2], [3]/[4], [15]/[16], and [17]/[18] appear to be near-duplicates; [5] lacks a full author list; [32] is listed but not cited in the text. Please consolidate and check all citations.
  3. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'model-agnostic' is overstated if adaptation relies on BN layers; specify the class of architectures for which the recipe applies.
  4. [Appendix A] Figure 8 is referenced for subject-wise distributions, but numeric standard deviations or interquartile ranges are not reported. Adding these would strengthen the claims about consistency.
  5. [Section 3.2] Please clarify whether per-record streaming standardization is updated before or after TTA updates affect the BN statistics; this affects the online/streaming claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; headline performance claim is unquantified but not circular.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation of a test-time adaptation recipe rather than a derivation. The method section defines the entropy-minimization objective, BN refresh, entropy gate, and EMA reset without fitting any target quantity into the definition. Table 1 reports only adapted-model metrics; the abstract’s claim of 'consistent gains over a frozen baseline' is asserted in Section 4.5 ('BN-only improves over frozen inference', 'Tent adds further gains') but no frozen-baseline numbers are provided anywhere. That is a missing-comparison / evidence problem, not circularity: no equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citations appear (all references are standard prior work by others). Sections 4.3 and 4.4 are placeholder descriptions ('added back') rather than quantitative analyses, further indicating incompleteness rather than circular reduction. Hyperparameters are selected on validation and frozen for test, which is standard practice and not circular. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with a quote-and-reduction, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its empirical claims depend on several free adaptation hyperparameters that are not disclosed, and on the standard TTA assumption that entropy minimization and BN statistics refresh improve unlabeled target performance. The lack of a frozen baseline makes these assumptions untestable from the text alone.

free parameters (4)
  • Entropy gate thresholds (hmin, hmax)
    Used in Section 3.4 to pause adaptation on uncertain windows; values are not reported, only described as fixed from validation.
  • EMA reset criterion and momentum
    Defined in Section 3.4 to reel back drift; no values or sensitivity analysis provided.
  • BatchNorm running statistics momentum
    Controls how fast BN statistics are refreshed in Section 3.4; value not reported.
  • Causal median filter width = 5
    Set to 5 in Section 3.4 to reduce prediction flicker; chosen by hand without justification.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Entropy minimization is a valid proxy for correctness on unlabeled target streams
    Adopted from Tent [41] in Section 3.4; the paper provides no verification that lower entropy correlates with better sleep staging under subject shift.
  • domain assumption The R&K to AASM mapping preserves label semantics for this dataset
    Used in Section 3.2; the mapping is standard but introduces label ambiguities that could affect the reported metrics.
  • domain assumption The domain shift in Sleep-EDF Expanded mainly affects feature statistics rather than the feature extractor
    The entire BN-refresh mechanism in Section 3.4 relies on this premise; without a frozen-baseline comparison it is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StableSleep: Source-Free Test-Time Adaptation for Sleep Staging with Lightweight Safety Rails." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIAROQVV

@misc{pith2026250902982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StableSleep: Source-Free Test-Time Adaptation for Sleep Staging with Lightweight Safety Rails},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIAROQVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02982}
}
read the original abstract

Sleep staging models often degrade when deployed on patients with unseen physiology or recording conditions. We propose a streaming, source-free test-time adaptation (TTA) recipe that combines entropy minimization (Tent) with Batch-Norm statistic refresh and two safety rails: an entropy gate to pause adaptation on uncertain windows and an EMA-based reset to reel back drift. On Sleep-EDF Expanded, using single-lead EEG (Fpz-Cz, 100 Hz, 30s epochs; R&K to AASM mapping), we show consistent gains over a frozen baseline at seconds-level latency and minimal memory, reporting per-stage metrics and Cohen's k. The method is model-agnostic, requires no source data or patient calibration, and is practical for on-device or bedside use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Test confusion matrix (counts and row-normalized). N1 remains hardest; W is easiest. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reliability diagrams for validation (left) and test (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted vs. empirical stage distributions for test (left) and validation (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation confusion matrix (counts and row-normalized). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stage transition matrices and residuals (validation). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stage transition matrices and residuals (test). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example hypnogram from a test subject [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Subject-wise distributions (accuracy, κ). B Reproducibility Details B.1 Compute & Environment • Hardware: Apple MacBook Pro (M4 Pro; Apple Silicon, unified memory), NVMe SSD. • OS: macOS (Apple Silicon build). • Acceleration: PyTorch MPS backend (torch.backends.mps); C…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Berry, R

    Richard B. Berry, R. Brooks, C. E. Gamaldo, S. M. Harding, R. M. Lloyd, C. L. Marcus, and B. V . Vaughn. The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Berry, Rita Brooks, Charlene Gamaldo, Susan M

    Richard B. Berry, Rita Brooks, Charlene Gamaldo, Susan M. Harding, Robert M. Lloyd, Carole L. Marcus, and Bradley V . Vaughn.The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, Darien, IL, version 2.2 edition, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Berry, Rohit Budhiraja, Daniel J

    Richard B. Berry, Rohit Budhiraja, Daniel J. Gottlieb, and et al. Rules for scoring respiratory events in sleep: Update of the 2007 aasm manual. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 8(5):597– 619, 2012

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Berry, Rohit Budhiraja, Daniel J

    Richard B. Berry, Rohit Budhiraja, Daniel J. Gottlieb, David Gozal, Conrad Iber, Vishesh K. Kapur, Carole L. Marcus, Reena Mehra, Sairam Parthasarathy, Stuart F. Quan, Susan Redline, Kingman P. Strohl, Susan L. D. Ward, and Michael M. Tangredi. Rules for scoring respiratory events in sleep: update of the 2007 AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Assoc...

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    The aasm manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: Rules, terminology and technical specifications (version 2.0)

    Richard B Berry et al. The aasm manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: Rules, terminology and technical specifications (version 2.0). American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    A deep learning architecture for temporal sleep stage classification using multimodal and multivariate time series

    Stanislas Chambon, Mathieu N Galtier, Pierrick J Arnal, Gilles Wainrib, and Alexandre Gram- fort. A deep learning architecture for temporal sleep stage classification using multimodal and multivariate time series. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales

    Jacob Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1):37–46, 1960

    1960

  8. [8]

    An attention-based deep learning approach for sleep stage classification with single-channel eeg

    Emadeldeen Eldele, Zhenghua Chen, Chengyu Liu, Min Wu, Chee-Keong Kwoh, Xiaoli Li, and Cuntai Guan. An attention-based deep learning approach for sleep stage classification with single-channel eeg. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 29:809–818, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Time-Series Representation Learning with Temporal Convolutional Networks and Attention for Sleep Stage Classification

    Emadeldeen Eldele, Mohamed Ragab, Zhe Chen, Min Wu, Chee Keong Kwoh, Xiaoli Li, and Cuntai Guan. Time-Series Representation Learning with Temporal Convolutional Networks and Attention for Sleep Stage Classification. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engine...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Sigmoid-Weighted Linear Units for Neural Network Function Approximation in Reinforcement Learning

    Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. Sigmoid-Weighted Linear Units for Neural Network Function Approximation in Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:1702.03118, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: Components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals

    Ary L Goldberger, Luis AN Amaral, Leon Glass, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Plamen Ch Ivanov, Roger G Mark, Joseph E Mietus, George B Moody, Chung-Kang Peng, and H Eugene Stanley. Physiobank, physiotoolkit, and physionet: Components of a new research resource for complex physiologic si...

    2000

  4. [12]

    Mne software for processing meg and eeg data

    Alexandre Gramfort et al. Mne software for processing meg and eeg data. NeuroImage, 86:446–460, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Engemann, Daniel Strohmeier, Christian Brodbeck, Roman Goj, Mainak Jas, Teon Brooks, Lauri Parkkonen, and Matti S

    Alexandre Gramfort, Martin Luessi, Eric Larson, Denis A. Engemann, Daniel Strohmeier, Christian Brodbeck, Roman Goj, Mainak Jas, Teon Brooks, Lauri Parkkonen, and Matti S. Hämäläinen. MEG and EEG Data Analysis with MNE-Python. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7:267, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    On calibration of modern neural networks

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2017. 5

    2017

  7. [16]

    Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew G. Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  9. [18]

    Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, Gang Sun, Samuel Albanie, and Enhua Wu. Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  10. [19]

    Chesson, and Stuart F

    Conrad Iber, Sonia Ancoli-Israel, Andrew L. Chesson, and Stuart F. Quan. The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2007

    2007

  11. [20]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015

    2015

  12. [21]

    The Sleep-EDF Database

    Bob Kemp. The Sleep-EDF Database. PhysioNet/PhysioBank, 2002

    2002

  13. [22]

    Sleep-EDF Database Expanded

    Bob Kemp, Ana Cristina da Rosa, Joost van Dijk, et al. Sleep-EDF Database Expanded. PhysioNet News, 2018

    2018

  14. [23]

    Analysis of a sleep-dependent neuronal feedback loop: The slow-wave microcontinuity of the eeg

    Bob Kemp, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Bauke Tuk, Henri A Kamphuisen, and Jeroen J Oberye. Analysis of a sleep-dependent neuronal feedback loop: The slow-wave microcontinuity of the eeg. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2000

    2000

  15. [24]

    Zwinderman, Bert Tuk, Hilbert A

    Bob Kemp, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Bert Tuk, Hilbert A. C. Kamphuisen, and Josefien J. L. Oberyé. Analysis of a sleep-dependent neuronal feedback loop: The slow-wave microcontinuity of the eeg. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 47(9):1185–1194, 2000

    2000

  16. [25]

    ISRUC-sleep: A comprehensive public dataset for sleep researchers

    Sirvan Khalighi, Teresa Sousa, José Moutinho Santos, and Urbano Nunes. ISRUC-sleep: A comprehensive public dataset for sleep researchers. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 124:180–192, 2016

    2016

  17. [26]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015

    2015

  18. [27]

    Revisiting batch normalization for practical domain adaptation

    Yanghao Li, Naiyan Wang, Jianping Shi, Jiaying Liu, and Xiaodi Hou. Revisiting batch normalization for practical domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04779, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Adaptive batch normal- ization for practical domain adaptation

    Yanghao Li, Naiyan Wang, Jianping Shi, Jiaying Liu, and Xiaodi Hou. Adaptive batch normal- ization for practical domain adaptation. Pattern Recognition, 80:109–117, 2018

    2018

  20. [29]

    Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Jian Liang, Dapeng Hu, and Jiashi Feng. Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2020

    2020

  21. [30]

    Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017

    2017

  22. [31]

    Long-tail learning via logit adjustment

    Aditya Krishna Menon, Sadeep Jayasumana, Ankit Rawat, Himanshu Jain, Andreas Veit, and Sanjiv Kumar. Long-tail learning via logit adjustment. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  23. [32]

    Efficient test-time model adaptation without forgetting

    Shuaicheng Niu, Jian Wang, Chang Ren, Gaofeng Zhang, Jinjin Liao, and Tiejun Huang. Efficient test-time model adaptation without forgetting. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    Montreal archive of sleep studies: An open-access resource for instrument benchmarking and exploratory research

    Christian O’Reilly, Nadia Gosselin, Julie Carrier, and Tore Nielsen. Montreal archive of sleep studies: An open-access resource for instrument benchmarking and exploratory research. Journal of Sleep Research, 23(6):628–635, 2014. 6

    2014

  25. [34]

    U-Sleep: Resilient high-frequency sleep staging

    Mathias Perslev, Sune Darkner, Lykke Kempfner, Miki Nikolic, Poul Jørgen Jennum, and Christian Igel. U-Sleep: Resilient high-frequency sleep staging. npj Digital Medicine, 4(72), 2021

    2021

  26. [35]

    U-time: A fully convolutional network for time series segmentation applied to sleep staging

    Mathias Perslev, Michael Hejselbak Jensen, Sune Darkner, Poul Jørgen Jennum, and Christian Igel. U-time: A fully convolutional network for time series segmentation applied to sleep staging. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019

    2019

  27. [36]

    Chén, and Maarten De V os

    Huy Phan, Fernando Andreotti, Navin Cooray, Oliver Y . Chén, and Maarten De V os. Seqsleepnet: End-to-end hierarchical recurrent neural network for sequence-to-sequence automatic sleep staging. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 27(3):400–410, 2019

    2019

  28. [37]

    Quan, Barbara V

    Stuart F. Quan, Barbara V . Howard, Conrad Iber, John P. Kiley, F. Javier Nieto, George T. O’Connor, David M. Rapoport, Susan Redline, John Robbins, Jonathan M. Samet, and Patri- cia W. Wahl. The sleep heart health study: Design, rationale, and methods. Sleep, 20(12):1077– 1085, 1997

    1997

  29. [38]

    A Manual of Standardized Terminology, Techniques and Scoring System for Sleep Stages of Human Subjects

    Allan Rechtschaffen and Anthony Kales. A Manual of Standardized Terminology, Techniques and Scoring System for Sleep Stages of Human Subjects . U.S. National Institutes of Health, 1968

    1968

  30. [39]

    Efros, and Moritz Hardt

    Yu Sun, Xiaolong Wang, Zhuang Liu, John Miller, Alexei A. Efros, and Moritz Hardt. Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2020

    2020

  31. [40]

    DeepSleepNet: A Model for Automatic Sleep Stage Scoring based on Raw Single-Channel EEG

    Akara Supratak, Hao Dong, Chao Wu, and Yike Guo. DeepSleepNet: A Model for Automatic Sleep Stage Scoring based on Raw Single-Channel EEG. arXiv:1703.04046, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization

    Dequan Wang, Evan Shelhamer, Shaoteng Liu, Bruno Olshausen, and Trevor Darrell. Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  33. [42]

    Continual test-time domain adaptation

    Qin Wang, Olga Fink, Luc Van Gool, and Dengxin Dai. Continual test-time domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7201–7211, 2022

    2022

  34. [43]

    Inter-database validation of a deep learning approach for automatic sleep staging

    Diego Álvarez Estévez, Valentín Moret-Bonillo, Clara Lado, et al. Inter-database validation of a deep learning approach for automatic sleep staging. PLOS ONE, 16(8):e0256111, 2021. 7 A Supplementary figures Figure 4: Validation confusion matrix (counts and row-normalized). Fig...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.