plpd
ETAGE: Enhanced Test Time Adaptation with Integrated Entropy and Gradient Norms for Robust Model Performance
Shamsi, Afshar, Becirovic, Rejisa, Argha, Ahmadreza, Abbasnejad, Ehsan, Alinejad-Rokny, Hamid, Mohammadi, Arash
Test time adaptation (TTA) equips deep learning models to handle unseen test data that deviates from the training distribution, even when source data is inaccessible. While traditional TTA methods often rely on entropy as a confidence metric, its effectiveness can be limited, particularly in biased scenarios. Extending existing approaches like the Pseudo Label Probability Difference (PLPD), we introduce ETAGE, a refined TTA method that integrates entropy minimization with gradient norms and PLPD, to enhance sample selection and adaptation. Our method prioritizes samples that are less likely to cause instability by combining high entropy with high gradient norms out of adaptation, thus avoiding the overfitting to noise often observed in previous methods. Extensive experiments on CIFAR-10-C and CIFAR-100-C datasets demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing TTA techniques, particularly in challenging and biased scenarios, leading to more robust and consistent model performance across diverse test scenarios. The codebase for ETAGE is available on https://github.com/afsharshamsi/ETAGE.
Entropy is not Enough for Test-Time Adaptation: From the Perspective of Disentangled Factors
Lee, Jonghyun, Jung, Dahuin, Lee, Saehyung, Park, Junsung, Shin, Juhyeon, Hwang, Uiwon, Yoon, Sungroh
The primary challenge of TTA is limited access to the entire test dataset during online updates, causing error accumulation. To mitigate it, TTA methods have utilized the model output's entropy as a confidence metric that aims to determine which samples have a lower likelihood of causing error. Through experimental studies, however, we observed the unreliability of entropy as a confidence metric for TTA under biased scenarios and theoretically revealed that it stems from the neglect of the influence of latent disentangled factors of data on predictions. Building upon these findings, we introduce a novel TTA method named Destroy Your Object (DeYO), which leverages a newly proposed confidence metric named Pseudo-Label Probability Difference (PLPD). PLPD quantifies the influence of the shape of an object on prediction by measuring the difference between predictions before and after applying an object-destructive transformation. DeYO consists of sample selection and sample weighting, which employ entropy and PLPD concurrently. For robust adaptation, DeYO prioritizes samples that dominantly incorporate shape information when making predictions. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the consistent superiority of DeYO over baseline methods across various scenarios, including biased and wild. Although deep neural networks (DNNs) demonstrate powerful performance across various domains, they lack robustness against distribution shifts under conventional training (He et al., 2016; Pan & Yang, 2009). Therefore, research areas such as domain generalization (Blanchard et al., 2011; Gulrajani & Lopez-Paz, 2021), which involves training models to be robust against arbitrary distribution shifts, and unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) (Ganin & Lempitsky, 2015; Park et al., 2020), which seeks domain-invariant information for label-absent target domains, have been extensively investigated in the existing literature. Test-time adaptation (TTA) (Wang et al., 2021a) has also gained significant attention as a means to address distribution shifts occurring during test time. TTA leverages each data point once for adaptation immediately after inference. Its minimal overhead compared to existing areas makes it particularly suitable for real-world applications (Azimi et al., 2022). Because UDA assumes access to the entire test samples before adaptation, it utilizes its information on a task by analyzing the distribution of the entire test set (Kang et al., 2019). It leads to inaccurate predictions, and incorporating them into model updates results in error accumulation within the model (Arazo et al., 2020).