2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2112.05090
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extending the WILDS Benchmark for Unsupervised Adaptation

Abstract: Machine learning systems deployed in the wild are often trained on a source distribution but deployed on a different target distribution. Unlabeled data can be a powerful point of leverage for mitigating these distribution shifts, as it is frequently much more available than labeled data. However, existing distribution shift benchmarks for unlabeled data do not reflect the breadth of scenarios that arise in real-world applications. In this work, we present the Wilds 2.0 update, which extends 8 of the 10 datase… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of 10 datasets are included, covering shifts across cameras for wildlife monitoring, hospitals for tumor identification, users for product rating estimation, andƒ scaffolds for biochemical property prediction, etc. Sagawa et al (2021) further extend this database to include unlabeled data for unsupervised domain adaptation.…”
Section: General Ood Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 10 datasets are included, covering shifts across cameras for wildlife monitoring, hospitals for tumor identification, users for product rating estimation, andƒ scaffolds for biochemical property prediction, etc. Sagawa et al (2021) further extend this database to include unlabeled data for unsupervised domain adaptation.…”
Section: General Ood Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For retinal OCT image segmentation, we include three UDA methods that have been employed to adapt OCT images in [21], that are the image translation methods UDA-ST [45] and CycleGAN [46], and the widely used output space adaptation method UDAS [47]. For histopathological image classification, we compare with UDA-SwAV [41], which is the best reported UDA model for histopathological image classification using the datasets as ours. For prostate segmentation, we also employ UDAS for comparison.…”
Section: B Comparison With State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For prostate segmentation, we also employ UDAS for comparison. The results of ATTA, UDA-ST on OCT images and the results of UDA-SwAV on unseen histopathological dataset A are directly referenced from [21] and [41] respectively since the same datasets, network backbones, and data split are used in their methods and ours. The other results are obtained by re-implementing based on the released code with the network backbone being consistent for all the comparison methods.…”
Section: B Comparison With State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Koh et al [51] introduced WILDS: a benchmark of several new in-the-wild distribution shifts datasets across diverse data modalities, i.e., IWildCam2020-WILDS, Camelyon17-WILDS, RxRx1-WILDS, OGB-MolPCBA, GlobalWheat-WILDS, CivilComments-WILDS, FMoW-WILDS, PovertyMap-WILDS, Amazon-WILDS, and Py150-WILDS. WILDS was recently extended with unlabeled samples for multiple of its datasets [90].…”
Section: Existing Benchmarks For Ood Generalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%