Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
Since autonomous driving systems usually face dynamic and ever-changing environments, continual test-time adaptation (CTTA) has been proposed as a strategy for transferring deployed models to continually changing target domains.
2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” in international conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2016, pp. 1050–1059
2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Benenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele, “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 3213–3223
2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017
2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results.” Learning , 2017
2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
M. Siam, M. Gamal, M. Abdel-Razek, S. Yogamani, M. Jagersand, and H. Zhang, “A comparative study of real-time semantic segmentation for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , 2018, pp. 587–597
2018
Earlier work this paper cites.
Y. Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek, “Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019
2019
Earlier work this paper cites.
J. Liang, D. Hu, and J. Feng, “Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation,” in ICML , 2020
2020
Earlier work this paper cites.
2020
Earlier work this paper cites.
C. Sakaridis, D. Dai, and L. Van Gool, “Acdc: The adverse conditions dataset with correspondences for semantic driving scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 10 765–10 775
2021
Earlier work this paper cites.
D. Wang, E. Shelhamer, S. Liu, B. A. Olshausen, and T. Darrell, “Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization,” in ICLR , 2021
2021
Earlier work this paper cites.
E. Xie, W. Wang, Z. Yu, A. Anandkumar, J. M. Alvarez, and P. Luo, “Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 12 077–12 090, 2021
2021
Earlier work this paper cites.
T. Sun, M. Segu, J. Postels, Y. Wang, L. Van Gool, B. Schiele, F. Tombari, and F. Yu, “Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 21 371–21 382
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
M. Jia, L. Tang, B.-C. Chen, C. Cardie, S. Belongie, B. Hariharan, and S.-N. Lim, “Visual prompt tuning,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXXIII . Springer, 2022, pp. 709–727
2022
2023
Closest in time.
2023
Closest in time.
J. Song, J. Lee, I. S. Kweon, and S. Choi, “Ecotta: Memory-efficient continual test-time adaptation via self-distilled regularization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 11 920–11 929
2023
Closest in time.
2023
Closest in time.
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Cited alongside, same era.
S. Chen, C. Ge, Z. Tong, J. Wang, Y. Song, J. Wang, and P. Luo, “Adaptformer: Adapting vision transformers for scalable visual recognition,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 16 664–16 678, 2022
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
S. Roy, M. Trapp, A. Pilzer, J. Kannala, N. Sebe, E. Ricci, and A. Solin, “Uncertainty-guided source-free domain adaptation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXV . Springer, 2022, pp. 537–555
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
2022
Cited alongside, same era.
X. Chi, J. Liu, M. Lu, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Guo, and S. Zhang, “Bev-san: Accurate bev 3d object detection via slice attention networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 17 461–17 470
2023
Cited alongside, same era.
2023
Cited alongside, same era.
Y. Gan, M. Pan, R. Zhang, Z. Ling, L. Zhao, J. Liu, and S. Zhang, “Cloud-device collaborative adaptation to continual changing environments in the real-world,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 12 157–12 166
2023
Closest in time.
2023
Closest in time.
2023
Closest in time.
L. Yuan, B. Xie, and S. Li, “Robust test-time adaptation in dynamic scenarios,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 15 922–15 932
2023
Closest in time.
M. Döbler, R. A. Marsden, and B. Yang, “Robust mean teacher for continual and gradual test-time adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 7704–7714
2023
Closest in time.
Z. Li, S. Shi, B. Schiele, and D. Dai, “Test-time domain adaptation for monocular depth estimation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 4873–4879
2023
Closest in time.
2023
Closest in time.