Feng Yu

Xiangyu Wu, Feng Yu, Qing-Guo Chen et al.

Mainstream test-time adaptation (TTA) techniques endeavor to mitigate distribution shifts via entropy minimization for multi-class classification, inherently increasing the probability of the most confident class. However, when encountering multi-label instances, the primary challenge stems from the varying number of labels per image, and prioritizing only the highest probability class inevitably undermines the adaptation of other positive labels. To address this issue, we investigate TTA within multi-label scenario (ML--TTA), developing Bound Entropy Minimization (BEM) objective to simultaneously increase the confidence of multiple top predicted labels. Specifically, to determine the number of labels for each augmented view, we retrieve a paired caption with yielded textual labels for that view. These labels are allocated to both the view and caption, called weak label set and strong label set with the same size k. Following this, the proposed BEM considers the highest top-k predicted labels from view and caption as a single entity, respectively, learning both view and caption prompts concurrently. By binding top-k predicted labels, BEM overcomes the limitation of vanilla entropy minimization, which exclusively optimizes the most confident class. Across the MSCOCO, VOC, and NUSWIDE multi-label datasets, our ML--TTA framework equipped with BEM exhibits superior performance compared to the latest SOTA methods, across various model architectures, prompt initialization, and varying label scenarios. The code is available at https://github.com/Jinx630/ML-TTA.

Yiling Chen, Shi Feng, Paul Kattuman et al.

How can we assess the reliability of a dataset without access to ground truth? We introduce the problem of reliability scoring for datasets collected from potentially strategic sources. The true data are unobserved, but we see outcomes of an unknown statistical experiment that depends on them. To benchmark reliability, we define ground-truth-based orderings that capture how much reported data deviate from the truth. We then propose the Gram determinant score, which measures the volume spanned by vectors describing the empirical distribution of the observed data and experiment outcomes. We show that this score preserves several ground-truth based reliability orderings and, uniquely up to scaling, yields the same reliability ranking of datasets regardless of the experiment -- a property we term experiment agnosticism. Experiments on synthetic noise models, CIFAR-10 embeddings, and real employment data demonstrate that the Gram determinant score effectively captures data quality across diverse observation processes.