Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A Critical Synthesis of Uncertainty Quantification and Foundation Models in Monocular Depth Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Fine-tuning a metric depth foundation model with the Gaussian Negative Log-Likelihood loss yields per-pixel uncertainty estimates at no extra inference cost, while maintaining depth accuracy on par with the baseline.

desk verdict Solid benchmark comparing five UQ methods on DepthAnythingV2, but the GNLL recommendation is overgeneralized and the paper's own UseGeo results contradict it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08188 v1 pith:3MZFAHU3 submitted 2025-01-14 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Steven Landgraf , Rongjun Qin , Markus Ulrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords uncertaintyquantificationmonoculardepthestimationmetricfoundationmodelsGaussiannegativelog-likelihoodAnythingV2deeplearningdenseregression
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

Uncertainty quantification has been studied for monocular depth estimation, but not systematically combined with modern depth foundation models. This paper fuses five uncertainty methods with DepthAnythingV2 and tests them on four metric-depth datasets spanning indoor, urban, aerial, and robotic-object scenes. Its central claim is that fine-tuning with the Gaussian Negative Log-Likelihood (GNLL) loss is the most promising fusion: GNLL learns a per-pixel variance as a second output channel, requires no extra forward passes, and matches the baseline in training and inference time. The paper argues this makes uncertainty-aware, explainable metric depth practical for real-world, safety-critical deployment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian Negative Log-Likelihood loss, a heteroscedastic regression objective that makes the network output a mean $\mu$ and a variance $s^2$ per pixel. The loss $L_{\mathrm{GNLL}}(\mu,\hat y) = \frac12 [(\hat y-\mu)^2/s^2 + \log s^2]$ trains both outputs jointly, so the variance is learned implicitly from the same forward pass that produces the depth estimate. This gives GNLL its decisive practical advantage: the fine-tuned model needs no sampling and no architectural multiplication, matching the baseline's FPS, parameters, and FLOPs. The experimental machinery also includes the uncertainty metrics from Mukhoti and Gal, namely p(accurate|certain), p(uncertain|inaccurate), and PAvPU, with accuracy defined by the $\delta_1$ threshold (ratio $< 1.25$) and certainty defined by a per-image median uncertainty threshold.

What would settle it

Run the same five methods with multiple random seeds on a large-depth aerial or long-range outdoor dataset and report confidence intervals for p(uncertain|inaccurate). If GNLL's score remains near 0.24 while Monte Carlo Dropout's stays near 0.67 under the paper's own thresholds, the general claim that GNLL is the most promising approach would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that GNLL is the best way to add uncertainty to DepthAnythingV2 because it produces calibrated pixel-wise uncertainty estimates with no additional computational overhead. By outputting both a predictive mean $\mu$ and a variance $s^2$, and minimizing $L_{\mathrm{GNLL}}(\mu,\hat y) = \frac12 [(\hat y-\mu)^2/s^2 + \log s^2]$, the network learns heteroscedastic uncertainty implicitly from a single forward pass, unlike Monte Carlo Dropout, Sub-Ensembles, and Test-Time Augmentation, which require multiple forward passes. On NYUv2, Cityscapes, and HOPE, GNLL delivers the best or tied-best uncertainty metrics, reaching up to 98.0% p(accurate|certain) and 91.2% p(uncertain|inaccurate) on NYUv2, while depth accuracy remains on par with or better than the baseline. The paper also reports that on the large-depth aerial UseGeo dataset GNLL falls behind Monte Carlo Dropout, an outcome it attributes to the loss's logarithmic term being magnified by large depth values.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that GNLL is the most promising method rests on letting its strong indoor, urban, and object-scene results outweigh its clearly worse performance on the aerial large-depth dataset, and on trusting single-run uncertainty scores without statistical tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning DepthAnythingV2 with GNLL gives practitioners a per-pixel uncertainty map for the same inference cost as the unmodified model, so uncertainty-aware metric depth becomes feasible in latency-constrained robotics and driving systems.
  • GNLL keeps depth accuracy on par with or ahead of the baseline across three encoder sizes on NYUv2, Cityscapes, and HOPE, showing that adding uncertainty does not force a performance trade-off in those domains.
  • The GNLL extension is architecture-agnostic: it only adds a second output channel to the depth head, so the same recipe can be transferred to other dense-regression foundation models.
  • The efficiency comparison shows that sampling-based methods cost 3 to 10 times more inference time while GNLL matches baseline FPS, making GNLL the only evaluated method with free uncertainty in deployment.
  • The UseGeo result cautions that GNLL's learned variance degrades when depth values are very large, so domain-specific handling is required before using it on aerial or long-range scenes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves open is predicting inverse depth or normalizing the GNLL variance by scene scale, which might remove the UseGeo failure because the $\log s^2$ term is what inflates the loss for large depths.
  • The paper's uncertainty metrics use a per-image median threshold, so the reported rankings depend on image composition; a fixed absolute uncertainty threshold would give a more direct test of calibration and could change the method ordering.
  • The results are consistent with GNLL capturing aleatoric uncertainty only; combining GNLL with a small ensemble or with Monte Carlo Dropout could separate epistemic from aleatoric components, something the paper does not attempt.
  • The claimed transfer to semantic segmentation and pose estimation is plausible because GNLL requires only an extra output head, but it is not demonstrated; the same protocol could be run on those tasks to confirm that the learned variance is meaningful outside depth.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper empirically compares five uncertainty quantification (UQ) approaches—Learned Confidence (LC), Gaussian Negative Log-Likelihood (GNLL), Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), Sub-Ensembles (SE), and Test-Time Augmentation (TTA)—integrated into the DepthAnythingV2 foundation model for metric monocular depth estimation. The evaluation spans three encoder sizes (ViT-S/B/L) and four datasets (NYUv2, Cityscapes, UseGeo, HOPE), reporting depth quality metrics, UQ quality metrics (p(acc|cer), p(unc|ina), PAvPU), and efficiency. The central claim is that GNLL is a particularly promising UQ method because it yields reliable uncertainty estimates with no additional training or inference cost, while preserving predictive performance.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper has clear practical value: it would let practitioners add pixel-wise heteroscedastic uncertainty to a strong metric-depth backbone at zero marginal inference cost, which matters for robotics and autonomous-driving deployment. The paper's main strength is the breadth of its empirical matrix—five UQ methods × three encoder scales × four domains—together with explicit efficiency measurements and a detailed experimental protocol. The recommendation is derived from measured metrics rather than from a circular derivation. However, the paper's own results on UseGeo substantially qualify the headline claim, and the absence of repeated-run or statistical evidence weakens the ranking claims; the significance therefore depends on the revision being honest about domain dependence and statistical uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 6; Table 5] The headline claim that GNLL 'consistently' delivers reliable uncertainty estimates is contradicted by Table 5: on UseGeo, GNLL has the lowest p(unc|ina) of any method for all three encoders (0.237/0.293/0.294 vs 0.672/0.657/0.669 for MCD) and its RMSE degrades sharply for ViT-B (7.810 vs 6.386 baseline) and ViT-L (7.082 vs 6.173 baseline). Because the abstract and conclusion present GNLL as generally the most promising approach without this caveat, the central claim is an overgeneralization from the favorable indoor and object-scale domains to the aerial large-depth domain. The recommendation should either be domain-qualified or explicitly justify the weighting of the four datasets.
  2. [Section 5.2, UseGeo paragraph] The paper itself states that GNLL's failure on UseGeo 'is likely due to the large depth values in UseGeo, which led to much higher absolute GNLL loss values' and that no hyperparameter adjustments were made to address this. This admission makes the cross-dataset comparison non-uniform for GNLL: it is not clear whether the poor UseGeo result is an intrinsic property of GNLL or an artifact of an unnormalized loss on a large-depth domain. Since this result is the main counterexample to the paper's central claim, the authors should either test a scale-invariant GNLL variant (e.g., operating in log-depth space or with a normalized variance parameterization) and report whether UseGeo remains a failure case, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to small- and medium-depth ranges.
  3. [Section 5.1, uncertainty metrics; Tables 3–6] All uncertainty-quality conclusions are based on single training runs and point estimates of p(acc|cer), p(unc|ina), and PAvPU, with the certain/uncertain split defined by the per-image median uncertainty. The reported differences are often tiny (e.g., PAvPU 0.529 vs 0.533 for GNLL vs MCD on NYUv2 ViT-S), and the metrics are sensitive to the choice of threshold. Without repeated seeds, confidence intervals, or a statistical test, the paper's ranked claims ('consistently outperforms', 'decisively surpasses') are not supported. At minimum, the authors should report variance across seeds or a bootstrap over test images, and temper the ranking language accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 5, UseGeo ViT-B TTA row] The AbsRel value 0.631 for TTA appears to be a typo (likely 0.063, since the neighboring values are 0.074 and 0.063); please correct.
  2. [Table 4, UseGeo ViT-L MCD row] The δ1 value is printed as '0488' rather than '0.488'; please fix the missing decimal point.
  3. [Table 6, HOPE ViT-S LC row] The δ3 value is printed as '0945' rather than '0.945'; please fix the missing decimal point.
  4. [Section 4.6] Typo: 'the the mean and variance' should read 'the mean and variance'.
  5. [Section 4.2] The attribution to Wang et al. (2024) for adapting Learned Confidence to regression is not self-explanatory, since the cited paper (DUSt3R) is primarily a geometric vision method; please state explicitly which component is being reused.
  6. [Table 4 header] The header 'PAvPU↑' is missing the space used in the other tables ('PAvPU ↑'); please unify the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GNLL recommendation follows from external benchmarks, not from self-citations or definitional relations.

full rationale

This is an empirical benchmark rather than a derivation chain. The five UQ methods are externally proposed (Wan et al. 2018; Nix and Weigend 1994; Gal and Ghahramani 2016; Valdenegro-Toro 2023; Ayhan and Berens 2018), the backbone DepthAnythingV2 is an external foundation model, and all four evaluation datasets are external benchmarks. The central GNLL recommendation is a reading of the measured tables, not a quantity defined in terms of itself or of a fitted parameter. The paper's own admission that GNLL lags on UseGeo (Section 5.2: 'GNLL significantly lags behind the other methods on UseGeo') is a domain-coverage caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations to Landgraf et al. 2024a-d appear only in the evaluation protocol (median-uncertainty threshold and sample counts for MCD/SE) and do not define the ranking; these are minor methodological references rather than load-bearing premises. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed result to its inputs, so there is no circularity to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical benchmark, so no new mathematical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on a set of experimental protocol choices: fixed hyperparameters, a ten-sample/ten-head configuration, a median uncertainty threshold, and the selection of four datasets. None of these are fitted to force the GNLL result; the UseGeo outcome actually contradicts the headline recommendation.

free parameters (5)
  • LC confidence weight alpha = 0.2
    Set following Wang et al. (2024), Section 4.2; changes the learned-confidence uncertainty calibration and is not tuned per dataset.
  • Scale-invariant loss lambda = 0.15
    Set to the DepthAnythingV2 fine-tuning default (Section 4.2); used by the baseline and all fine-tuned methods, so it affects every depth-quality number in Tables 3-6.
  • MCD sampling count / SE head count = 10
    Section 5.1 fixes ten samples/heads, following Lakshminarayanan et al. (2017) and Landgraf et al. (2024c,d); the uncertainty rank could change with more samples.
  • Per-image uncertainty threshold = median uncertainty of the image
    Section 5.1 sets the certain/uncertain split to the image median to simulate real-world employment; this choice determines p(acc|cer), p(unc|ina), and PAvPU for every method.
  • Maximum depth clamping per dataset = e.g., 5m on NYUv2
    Mentioned in Section 5.3 qualitative discussion; per-dataset clamping changes the label distribution and can affect uncertainty calibration, especially on HOPE and UseGeo.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DepthAnythingV2 fine-tuning recommendations (learning rate, optimizer, loss) yield strong metric depth baselines.
    Section 5.1 follows the default settings of DepthAnythingV2 for metric fine-tuning; the baseline numbers in Tables 3-6 are the reference points against which UQ methods are judged.
  • domain assumption Uncertainty metrics p(acc|cer), p(unc|ina), PAvPU with median per-image threshold are valid proxies for uncertainty quality.
    Section 5.1 adopts these metrics from Mukhoti and Gal (2018) and Landgraf et al. (2024b); if this protocol is flawed, the comparative ranking loses meaning.
  • domain assumption The four datasets (NYUv2, Cityscapes, UseGeo, HOPE) span the relevant real-world metric depth domains.
    Section 1 claims wide coverage of real-world applications, but the number of datasets and their selection is a modeling choice; no formal argument connects them to deployment conditions.
  • domain assumption delta1 accuracy with threshold 1.25 defines a correct depth prediction for the uncertainty metrics.
    Equation 7 uses the strictest threshold-based accuracy to label predictions accurate/inaccurate; this binary labeling directly drives the uncertainty metric values.
  • domain assumption Existing UQ methods designed for convolutional networks transfer to transformer-based DepthAnythingV2 without adaptation.
    Section 4 applies LC, GNLL, MCD, SE, and TTA directly to the DPT decoder and ViT encoder; no analysis is provided for whether the transformer's self-attention changes the validity of these UQ methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Critical Synthesis of Uncertainty Quantification and Foundation Models in Monocular Depth Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MZFAHU3

@misc{pith2026250108188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Critical Synthesis of Uncertainty Quantification and Foundation Models in Monocular Depth Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MZFAHU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08188}
}
read the original abstract

While recent foundation models have enabled significant breakthroughs in monocular depth estimation, a clear path towards safe and reliable deployment in the real-world remains elusive. Metric depth estimation, which involves predicting absolute distances, poses particular challenges, as even the most advanced foundation models remain prone to critical errors. Since quantifying the uncertainty has emerged as a promising endeavor to address these limitations and enable trustworthy deployment, we fuse five different uncertainty quantification methods with the current state-of-the-art DepthAnythingV2 foundation model. To cover a wide range of metric depth domains, we evaluate their performance on four diverse datasets. Our findings identify fine-tuning with the Gaussian Negative Log-Likelihood Loss (GNLL) as a particularly promising approach, offering reliable uncertainty estimates while maintaining predictive performance and computational efficiency on par with the baseline, encompassing both training and inference time. By fusing uncertainty quantification and foundation models within the context of monocular depth estimation, this paper lays a critical foundation for future research aimed at improving not only model performance but also its explainability. Extending this critical synthesis of uncertainty quantification and foundation models into other crucial tasks, such as semantic segmentation and pose estimation, presents exciting opportunities for safer and more reliable machine vision systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08188 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative example of a fine-tuned DepthAnythingV2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic overview of how to fuse the five different uncertainty quantification approaches with the DepthAnythingV2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative examples for indoor (Silberman et al., 2012), outdoor (Cordts et al., 2016), aerial (Nex et al., 2024), and robotics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rethinking Semi-supervised Segmentation Beyond Accuracy: Reliability and Robustness

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new harmonic-mean metric, RSS, combines mIoU, calibration error, and two uncertainty-quality measures, and is used to show that SSL segmentation models like UniMatchV2 sacrifice reliability for accuracy.

  2. DesignCLIP: Multimodal Learning with CLIP for Design Patent Understanding

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The submitted package describes DesignCLIP in metadata, but the full text is a different paper, so the central results cannot be verified.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION list.label.output make.list.label ", " * write FUNCTION article output.bibitem list.label.output list.year output new.block title output new.block journal emphasize output format.volume.number output pages output new.block url output new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION book output.bibitem list.l...

  2. [2]

    Depthformer: Multiscale vision transformer for monocular depth estimation with global local information fusion

    Agarwal, A., Arora, C., 2022. Depthformer: Multiscale vision transformer for monocular depth estimation with global local information fusion. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), IEEE, 3873--3877

    2022

  3. [3]

    Aich, S., Vianney, J. M. U., Islam, M. A., Liu, M. K. B., 2021. Bidirectional attention network for monocular depth estimation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 11746--11752

    2021

  4. [4]

    Generative adversarial networks for unsupervised monocular depth prediction

    Aleotti, F., Tosi, F., Poggi, M., Mattoccia, S., 2018. Generative adversarial networks for unsupervised monocular depth prediction. Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 0--0

    2018

  5. [5]

    Deep evidential regression

    Amini, A., Schwarting, W., Soleimany, A., Rus, D., 2020. Deep evidential regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33, 14927--14937

    2020

  6. [6]

    Monocular depth estimation: A thorough review

    Arampatzakis, V., Pavlidis, G., Mitianoudis, N., Papamarkos, N., 2023. Monocular depth estimation: A thorough review. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2023

  7. [7]

    S., Berens, P., 2018

    Ayhan, M. S., Berens, P., 2018. Test-time data augmentation for estimation of heteroscedastic aleatoric uncertainty in deep neural networks. Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

    2018

  8. [8]

    F., Alhashim, I., Wonka, P., 2021

    Bhat, S. F., Alhashim, I., Wonka, P., 2021. Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4009--4018

    2021

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    F., Birkl, R., Wofk, D., Wonka, P., M \"u ller, M., 2023

    Bhat, S. F., Birkl, R., Wofk, D., Wonka, P., M \"u ller, M., 2023. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E. et al., 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Single-image depth perception in the wild

    Chen, W., Fu, Z., Yang, D., Deng, J., 2016. Single-image depth perception in the wild. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29

    2016

  4. [12]

    Oasis: A large-scale dataset for single image 3d in the wild

    Chen, W., Qian, S., Fan, D., Kojima, N., Hamilton, M., Deng, J., 2020. Oasis: A large-scale dataset for single image 3d in the wild. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 679--688

    2020

  5. [13]

    Adaptive confidence thresholding for monocular depth estimation

    Choi, H., Lee, H., Kim, S., Kim, S., Kim, S., Sohn, K., Min, D., 2021. Adaptive confidence thresholding for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 12808--12818

    2021

  6. [14]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Cordts, M., Omran, M., Ramos, S., Rehfeld, T., Enzweiler, M., Benenson, R., Franke, U., Roth, S., Schiele, B., 2016. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3213--3223

    2016

  7. [15]

    M., Prasad, M., 2018

    CS Kumar, A., Bhandarkar, S. M., Prasad, M., 2018. Monocular depth prediction using generative adversarial networks. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 300--308

    2018

  8. [16]

    Variational depth networks: Uncertainty-aware monocular self-supervised depth estimation

    Dikov, G., van Vugt, J., 2022. Variational depth networks: Uncertainty-aware monocular self-supervised depth estimation. European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 43--60

    2022

  9. [17]

    A., Anavatti, S

    Dong, X., Garratt, M. A., Anavatti, S. G., Abbass, H. A., 2022. Towards real-time monocular depth estimation for robotics: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 23(10), 16940--16961

    2022

  10. [18]

    et al., 2020

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S. et al., 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diffusiondepth: Diffusion denoising approach for monocular depth estimation

    Duan, Y., Guo, X., Zhu, Z., 2023. Diffusiondepth: Diffusion denoising approach for monocular depth estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05021

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Omnidata: A scalable pipeline for making multi-task mid-level vision datasets from 3d scans

    Eftekhar, A., Sax, A., Malik, J., Zamir, A., 2021. Omnidata: A scalable pipeline for making multi-task mid-level vision datasets from 3d scans. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 10786--10796

    2021

  13. [21]

    Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep network

    Eigen, D., Puhrsch, C., Fergus, R., 2014. Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep network. Advances in neural information processing systems , 27

    2014

  14. [23]

    Deep Ensembles : A Loss Landscape Perspective

    Fort, S., Hu, H., Lakshminarayanan, B., 2020. Deep Ensembles : A Loss Landscape Perspective . arXiv:1912.02757

    2020 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Latent discriminant deterministic uncertainty

    Franchi, G., Yu, X., Bursuc, A., Aldea, E., Dubuisson, S., Filliat, D., 2022. Latent discriminant deterministic uncertainty. European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 243--260

    2022

  16. [25]

    Deep ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation

    Fu, H., Gong, M., Wang, C., Batmanghelich, K., Tao, D., 2018. Deep ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2002--2011

    2018

  17. [26]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning

    Gal, Y., Ghahramani, Z., 2016. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. M. F. Balcan, K. Q. Weinberger (eds), Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 48, PMLR, ...

    2016

  18. [27]

    Gawlikowski, J., Tassi, C. R. N., Ali, M., Lee, J., Humt, M., Feng, J., Kruspe, A., Triebel, R., Jung, P., Roscher, R., Shahzad, M., Yang, W., Bamler, R., Zhu, X. X., 2022. A Survey of Uncertainty in Deep Neural Networks . arXiv:2107.03342

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Urtasun, R., 2012. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, IEEE, 3354--3361

    2012

  20. [29]

    Towards zero-shot scale-aware monocular depth estimation

    Guizilini, V., Vasiljevic, I., Chen, D., Ambruș, R., Gaidon, A., 2023. Towards zero-shot scale-aware monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 9233--9243

    2023

  21. [30]

    Q., 2017

    Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., Weinberger, K. Q., 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 1321--1330

    2017

  22. [31]

    K., Danelljan, M., Schon, T

    Gustafsson, F. K., Danelljan, M., Schon, T. B., 2020. Evaluating scalable bayesian deep learning methods for robust computer vision. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 318--319

    2020

  23. [32]

    Variational monocular depth estimation for reliability prediction

    Hirose, N., Taguchi, S., Kawano, K., Koide, S., 2021. Variational monocular depth estimation for reliability prediction. 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), IEEE, 637--647

    2021

  24. [33]

    Bop challenge 2020 on 6d object localization

    Hoda n , T., Sundermeyer, M., Drost, B., Labb \'e , Y., Brachmann, E., Michel, F., Rother, C., Matas, J., 2020. Bop challenge 2020 on 6d object localization. Computer Vision--ECCV 2020 Workshops: Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, Springer, 577--594

    2020

  25. [34]

    N., Wang, G., Brachmann, E., Drost, B., Lepetit, V., Rother, C., Matas, J., 2024

    Hodan, T., Sundermeyer, M., Labbe, Y., Nguyen, V. N., Wang, G., Brachmann, E., Drost, B., Lepetit, V., Rother, C., Matas, J., 2024. Bop challenge 2023 on detection segmentation and pose estimation of seen and unseen rigid objects. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Comp...

    2024

  26. [35]

    Gradient-based uncertainty for monocular depth estimation

    Hornauer, J., Belagiannis, V., 2022. Gradient-based uncertainty for monocular depth estimation. European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 613--630

    2022

  27. [36]

    Ddp: Diffusion model for dense visual prediction

    Ji, Y., Chen, Z., Xie, E., Hong, L., Liu, X., Liu, Z., Lu, T., Li, Z., Luo, P., 2023. Ddp: Diffusion model for dense visual prediction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 21741--21752

    2023

  28. [37]

    A real-time interactive augmented reality depth estimation technique for surgical robotics

    Kalia, M., Navab, N., Salcudean, T., 2019. A real-time interactive augmented reality depth estimation technique for surgical robotics. 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 8291--8297

    2019

  29. [38]

    C., Schindler, K., 2024

    Ke, B., Obukhov, A., Huang, S., Metzger, N., Daudt, R. C., Schindler, K., 2024. Repurposing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9492--9502

    2024

  30. [39]

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

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

    2017

  31. [40]

    Deep learning-based monocular depth estimation methods—a state-of-the-art review

    Khan, F., Salahuddin, S., Javidnia, H., 2020. Deep learning-based monocular depth estimation methods—a state-of-the-art review. Sensors , 20(8), 2272

    2020

  32. [41]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles

    Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., Blundell, C., 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett (eds), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3...

    2017

  33. [42]

    Efficient multi-task uncertainties for joint semantic segmentation and monocular depth estimation

    Landgraf, S., Hillemann, M., Kapler, T., Ulrich, M., 2024a. Efficient multi-task uncertainties for joint semantic segmentation and monocular depth estimation. DAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition (GCPR), Springer

  34. [43]

    Evaluation of Multi-task Uncertainties in Joint Semantic Segmentation and Monocular Depth Estimation

    Landgraf, S., Hillemann, M., Kapler, T., Ulrich, M., 2024b. Evaluation of Multi-task Uncertainties in Joint Semantic Segmentation and Monocular Depth Estimation. arXiv e-prints , arXiv--2405

  35. [44]

    Uncertainty-aware Cross-Entropy for Semantic Segmentation

    Landgraf, S., Hillemann, M., Wursthorn, K., Ulrich, M., 2024c. Uncertainty-aware Cross-Entropy for Semantic Segmentation. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , 10, 129--136

  36. [45]

    Dudes: Deep uncertainty distillation using ensembles for semantic segmentation

    Landgraf, S., Wursthorn, K., Hillemann, M., Ulrich, M., 2024d. Dudes: Deep uncertainty distillation using ensembles for semantic segmentation. PFG--Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science , 92(2), 101--114

  37. [46]

    G., Triebel, R., 2022

    Lee, J., Feng, J., Humt, M., M \"u ller, M. G., Triebel, R., 2022. Trust your robots! predictive uncertainty estimation of neural networks with sparse gaussian processes. Conference on Robot Learning, PMLR, 1168--1179

    2022

  38. [48]

    Training Confidence-calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples

    Lee, K., Lee, H., Lee, K., Shin, J., 2018. Training Confidence-calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples . arXiv:1711.09325

    2018 arXiv

  39. [49]

    S., Berens, P., Wahl, S., 2017

    Leibig, C., Allken, V., Ayhan, M. S., Berens, P., Wahl, S., 2017. Leveraging Uncertainty Information from Deep Neural Networks for Disease Detection. Scientific Reports , 7(1), 17816

    2017

  40. [50]

    Depthformer: Exploiting long-range correlation and local information for accurate monocular depth estimation

    Li, Z., Chen, Z., Liu, X., Jiang, J., 2023. Depthformer: Exploiting long-range correlation and local information for accurate monocular depth estimation. Machine Intelligence Research , 20(6), 837--854

    2023

  41. [51]

    Megadepth: Learning single-view depth prediction from internet photos

    Li, Z., Snavely, N., 2018. Megadepth: Learning single-view depth prediction from internet photos. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2041--2050

    2018

  42. [52]

    Binsformer: Revisiting adaptive bins for monocular depth estimation

    Li, Z., Wang, X., Liu, X., Jiang, J., 2024. Binsformer: Revisiting adaptive bins for monocular depth estimation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

    2024

  43. [53]

    H., Yan, H., Zhang, J., Xu, Z., Feng, J., 2023

    Liew, J. H., Yan, H., Zhang, J., Xu, Z., Feng, J., 2023. Magicedit: High-fidelity and temporally coherent video editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14749

    2023 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Simple and principled uncertainty estimation with deterministic deep learning via distance awareness

    Liu, J., Lin, Z., Padhy, S., Tran, D., Bedrax Weiss, T., Lakshminarayanan, B., 2020. Simple and principled uncertainty estimation with deterministic deep learning via distance awareness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33, 7498--7512

    2020

  45. [55]

    A general framework for uncertainty estimation in deep learning

    Loquercio, A., Segu, M., Scaramuzza, D., 2020. A general framework for uncertainty estimation in deep learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 5(2), 3153--3160

    2020

  46. [56]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Loshchilov, I., 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  47. [57]

    MacKay, D. J. C., 1992. A Practical Bayesian Framework for Backpropagation Networks . Neural Computation , 4(3), 448--472

    1992

  48. [58]

    A., Cristiano, J., Asif, M

    Masoumian, A., Rashwan, H. A., Cristiano, J., Asif, M. S., Puig, D., 2022. Monocular depth estimation using deep learning: A review. Sensors , 22(14), 5353

    2022

  49. [59]

    N., 2022

    Mi, L., Wang, H., Tian, Y., He, H., Shavit, N. N., 2022. Training-free uncertainty estimation for dense regression: Sensitivity as a surrogate. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36number 9, 10042--10050

    2022

  50. [60]

    Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review

    Ming, Y., Meng, X., Fan, C., Yu, H., 2021. Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review. Neurocomputing , 438, 14--33

    2021

  51. [61]

    Evaluating bayesian deep learning methods for semantic segmentation

    Mukhoti, J., Gal, Y., 2018. Evaluating bayesian deep learning methods for semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12709

    2018 arXiv

  52. [62]

    H., Gal, Y., 2023

    Mukhoti, J., Kirsch, A., van Amersfoort, J., Torr, P. H., Gal, Y., 2023. Deep deterministic uncertainty: A new simple baseline. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24384--24394

    2023

  53. [63]

    UseGeo-A UAV-based multi-sensor dataset for geospatial research

    Nex, F., Stathopoulou, E., Remondino, F., Yang, M., Madhuanand, L., Yogender, Y., Alsadik, B., Weinmann, M., Jutzi, B., Qin, R., 2024. UseGeo-A UAV-based multi-sensor dataset for geospatial research. ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , 100070

    2024

  54. [64]

    Uncertainty-aware self-improving framework for depth estimation

    Nie, X., Shi, D., Li, R., Liu, Z., Chen, X., 2021. Uncertainty-aware self-improving framework for depth estimation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7(1), 41--48

    2021

  55. [65]

    All in tokens: Unifying output space of visual tasks via soft token

    Ning, J., Li, C., Zhang, Z., Wang, C., Geng, Z., Dai, Q., He, K., Hu, H., 2023. All in tokens: Unifying output space of visual tasks via soft token. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 19900--19910

    2023

  56. [66]

    A., Weigend, A

    Nix, D. A., Weigend, A. S., 1994. Estimating the mean and variance of the target probability distribution. Proceedings of 1994 ieee international conference on neural networks (ICNN'94), 1, IEEE, 55--60

    1994

  57. [67]

    et al., 2023

    Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A. et al., 2023. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193

    2023 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Can you trust your model s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift

    Ovadia, Y., Fertig, E., Ren, J., Nado, Z., Sculley, D., Nowozin, S., Dillon, J., Lakshminarayanan, B., Snoek, J., 2019. Can you trust your model s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\' e -Buc,...

    2019

  59. [69]

    P3depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior

    Patil, V., Sakaridis, C., Liniger, A., Van Gool, L., 2022. P3depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1610--1621

    2022

  60. [70]

    Ecodepth: Effective conditioning of diffusion models for monocular depth estimation

    Patni, S., Agarwal, A., Arora, C., 2024. Ecodepth: Effective conditioning of diffusion models for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 28285--28295

    2024

  61. [71]

    idisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation

    Piccinelli, L., Sakaridis, C., Yu, F., 2023. idisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 21477--21487

    2023

  62. [72]

    Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation

    Piccinelli, L., Yang, Y.-H., Sakaridis, C., Segu, M., Li, S., Van Gool, L., Yu, F., 2024. Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 10106--10116

    2024

  63. [73]

    On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation

    Poggi, M., Aleotti, F., Tosi, F., Mattoccia, S., 2020. On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3227--3237

    2020

  64. [74]

    Vision transformers for dense prediction

    Ranftl, R., Bochkovskiy, A., Koltun, V., 2021. Vision transformers for dense prediction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 12179--12188

    2021

  65. [75]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer

    Ranftl, R., Lasinger, K., Hafner, D., Schindler, K., Koltun, V., 2020. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 44(3), 1623--1637

    2020

  66. [76]

    Harnessing model uncertainty for detecting adversarial examples

    Rawat, M., Wistuba, M., Nicolae, M.-I., 2017. Harnessing model uncertainty for detecting adversarial examples. NIPS Workshop on Bayesian Deep Learning

    2017

  67. [77]

    Monocular depth estimation in new environments with absolute scale

    Roussel, T., Van Eycken, L., Tuytelaars, T., 2019. Monocular depth estimation in new environments with absolute scale. 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 1735--1741

    2019

  68. [78]

    G., Conjeti, S., Navab, N., Wachinger, C., Initiative, A

    Roy, A. G., Conjeti, S., Navab, N., Wachinger, C., Initiative, A. D. N. et al., 2019. Bayesian QuickNAT: Model uncertainty in deep whole-brain segmentation for structure-wise quality control. NeuroImage , 195, 11--22

    2019

  69. [79]

    J., 2024

    Saxena, S., Herrmann, C., Hur, J., Kar, A., Norouzi, M., Sun, D., Fleet, D. J., 2024. The surprising effectiveness of diffusion models for optical flow and monocular depth estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

    2024

  70. [80]

    J., 2023

    Saxena, S., Kar, A., Norouzi, M., Fleet, D. J., 2023. Monocular depth estimation using diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14816

    2023 arXiv

  71. [81]

    C., Poll, E., Visser, J., 2018

    Serban, A. C., Poll, E., Visser, J., 2018. Adversarial examples-a complete characterisation of the phenomenon. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01185

    2018 arXiv

  72. [82]

    InseRF: Text-Driven Generative Object Insertion in Neural 3D Scenes

    Shahbazi, M., Claessens, L., Niemeyer, M., Collins, E., Tonioni, A., Van Gool, L., Tombari, F., 2024. InseRF: Text-Driven Generative Object Insertion in Neural 3D Scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05335

    2024 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Realmdreamer: Text-driven 3d scene generation with inpainting and depth diffusion

    Shriram, J., Trevithick, A., Liu, L., Ramamoorthi, R., 2024. Realmdreamer: Text-driven 3d scene generation with inpainting and depth diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07199

    2024 arXiv

  74. [84]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images

    Silberman, N., Hoiem, D., Kohli, P., Fergus, R., 2012. Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images. Computer Vision--ECCV 2012: 12th European Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, October 7-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part V 12, Springer, 746--760

    2012

  75. [85]

    Understanding measures of uncertainty for adversarial example detection

    Smith, L., Gal, Y., 2018. Understanding measures of uncertainty for adversarial example detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08533

    2018 arXiv

  76. [86]

    P., Xiao, J., 2015

    Song, S., Lichtenberg, S. P., Xiao, J., 2015. Sun rgb-d: A rgb-d scene understanding benchmark suite. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 567--576

    2015

  77. [87]

    Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting

    Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Salakhutdinov, R., 2014. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15(56), 1929-1958

    2014

  78. [88]

    Bop challenge 2022 on detection, segmentation and pose estimation of specific rigid objects

    Sundermeyer, M., Hoda n , T., Labbe, Y., Wang, G., Brachmann, E., Drost, B., Rother, C., Matas, J., 2023. Bop challenge 2022 on detection, segmentation and pose estimation of specific rigid objects. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2023

  79. [89]

    6-dof pose estimation of household objects for robotic manipulation: An accessible dataset and benchmark

    Tyree, S., Tremblay, J., To, T., Cheng, J., Mosier, T., Smith, J., Birchfield, S., 2022. 6-dof pose estimation of household objects for robotic manipulation: An accessible dataset and benchmark. International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    2022

  80. [90]

    Sub-ensembles for fast uncertainty estimation in neural networks

    Valdenegro-Toro, M., 2023. Sub-ensembles for fast uncertainty estimation in neural networks. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4119--4127

    2023

  81. [91]

    W., Gal, Y., 2020

    Van Amersfoort, J., Smith, L., Teh, Y. W., Gal, Y., 2020. Uncertainty estimation using a single deep deterministic neural network. International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 9690--9700

    2020

  82. [92]

    H., Lee, C.-Y., 2018

    Wan, S., Wu, T.-Y., Wong, W. H., Lee, C.-Y., 2018. Confnet: predict with confidence. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE, 2921--2925

    2018

  83. [93]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Wang, S., Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Chidlovskii, B., Revaud, J., 2024. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20697--20709

    2024

  84. [94]

    Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods for CNN -based Regression

    Wursthorn, K., Hillemann, M., Ulrich, M., 2022. Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods for CNN -based Regression. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , XLIII-B2-2022, 721--728

    2022

  85. [95]

    Visual attention-based self-supervised absolute depth estimation using geometric priors in autonomous driving

    Xiang, J., Wang, Y., An, L., Liu, H., Wang, Z., Liu, J., 2022. Visual attention-based self-supervised absolute depth estimation using geometric priors in autonomous driving. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7(4), 11998--12005

    2022

  86. [96]

    Neurallift-360: Lifting an in-the-wild 2d photo to a 3d object with 360deg views

    Xu, D., Jiang, Y., Wang, P., Fan, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., 2023. Neurallift-360: Lifting an in-the-wild 2d photo to a 3d object with 360deg views. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4479--4489

    2023

  87. [97]

    H., 2020

    Xue, F., Zhuo, G., Huang, Z., Fu, W., Wu, Z., Ang, M. H., 2020. Toward hierarchical self-supervised monocular absolute depth estimation for autonomous driving applications. 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2330--2337

    2020

  88. [98]

    Transformer-based attention networks for continuous pixel-wise prediction

    Yang, G., Tang, H., Ding, M., Sebe, N., Ricci, E., 2021. Transformer-based attention networks for continuous pixel-wise prediction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer vision, 16269--16279

    2021

  89. [99]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Yang, L., Kang, B., Huang, Z., Xu, X., Feng, J., Zhao, H., 2024a. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10371--10381

  90. [100]

    Depth Anything V2

    Yang, L., Kang, B., Huang, Z., Zhao, Z., Xu, X., Feng, J., Zhao, H., 2024b. Depth Anything V2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09414

    arXiv

  91. [101]

    Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image

    Yin, W., Zhang, C., Chen, H., Cai, Z., Yu, G., Wang, K., Chen, X., Shen, C., 2023. Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 9043--9053

    2023

  92. [102]

    Learning to recover 3d scene shape from a single image

    Yin, W., Zhang, J., Wang, O., Niklaus, S., Mai, L., Chen, S., Shen, C., 2021. Learning to recover 3d scene shape from a single image. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 204--213

    2021

  93. [103]

    Slurp: Side learning uncertainty for regression problems

    Yu, X., Franchi, G., Aldea, E., 2021. Slurp: Side learning uncertainty for regression problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11182

    2021 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Neural window fully-connected crfs for monocular depth estimation

    Yuan, W., Gu, X., Dai, Z., Zhu, S., Tan, P., 2022. Neural window fully-connected crfs for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3916--3925

    2022

  95. [105]

    J., Chun, S., Choe, J., Yoo, Y., 2019

    Yun, S., Han, D., Oh, S. J., Chun, S., Choe, J., Yoo, Y., 2019. Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 6023--6032

    2019

  96. [106]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Zhang, L., Rao, A., Agrawala, M., 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3836--3847

    2023

  97. [107]

    Monovit: Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with a vision transformer

    Zhao, C., Zhang, Y., Poggi, M., Tosi, F., Guo, X., Zhu, Z., Huang, G., Tang, Y., Mattoccia, S., 2022. Monovit: Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with a vision transformer. 2022 international conference on 3D vision (3DV), IEEE, 668--678

    2022

Pith tools

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