<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Training-Free Uncertainty Estimation for Dense Regression: Sensitivity as a Surrogate · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1910.04858/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1910.04858/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Training-Free Uncertainty Estimation for Dense Regression: Sensitivity as a Surrogate — mentioned by amcoastal</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23323759</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1910.04858:23323759</guid><pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2020 14:23:50 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, definitely. Though there has been some interesting papers recently on this using different methods to approximate bayesian posteriors in NN&amp;#x27;s. One of the most recent ones (Mi et al., 2019; https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.04858) that benchmarks a few different methods -- infer-dropout, infer-transformation, and infer-noise -- are all promising for different applications and neural network models (black, &amp;#x27;grey&amp;#x27;, &amp;#x27;white&amp;#x27; box).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1910.04858/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
