new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

byAK and the research community

Mar 18

ZoeDepth: Zero-shot Transfer by Combining Relative and Metric Depth

This paper tackles the problem of depth estimation from a single image. Existing work either focuses on generalization performance disregarding metric scale, i.e. relative depth estimation, or state-of-the-art results on specific datasets, i.e. metric depth estimation. We propose the first approach that combines both worlds, leading to a model with excellent generalization performance while maintaining metric scale. Our flagship model, ZoeD-M12-NK, is pre-trained on 12 datasets using relative depth and fine-tuned on two datasets using metric depth. We use a lightweight head with a novel bin adjustment design called metric bins module for each domain. During inference, each input image is automatically routed to the appropriate head using a latent classifier. Our framework admits multiple configurations depending on the datasets used for relative depth pre-training and metric fine-tuning. Without pre-training, we can already significantly improve the state of the art (SOTA) on the NYU Depth v2 indoor dataset. Pre-training on twelve datasets and fine-tuning on the NYU Depth v2 indoor dataset, we can further improve SOTA for a total of 21% in terms of relative absolute error (REL). Finally, ZoeD-M12-NK is the first model that can jointly train on multiple datasets (NYU Depth v2 and KITTI) without a significant drop in performance and achieve unprecedented zero-shot generalization performance to eight unseen datasets from both indoor and outdoor domains. The code and pre-trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/isl-org/ZoeDepth .

Language Models Prefer What They Know: Relative Confidence Estimation via Confidence Preferences

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.