Trustworthy deep domain adaptation for wearable photoplethysmography signal analysis with decision-theoretic uncertainty quantification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In principle, deep generative models can be used to perform domain adaptation; i.e. align the input feature representations of test data with that of a separate discriminative model's training data. This can help improve the discriminative model's performance on the test data. However, generative models are prone to producing hallucinations and artefacts that may degrade the quality of generated data, and therefore, predictive performance when processed by the discriminative model. While uncertainty quantification can provide a means to assess the quality of adapted data, the standard framework for evaluating the quality of predicted uncertainties may not easily extend to generative models due to the common lack of ground truths (among other reasons). Even with ground truths, this evaluation is agnostic to how the generated outputs are used on the downstream task, limiting the extent to which the uncertainty reliability analysis provides insights about the utility of the uncertainties with respect to the intended use case of the adapted examples. Here, we describe how decision-theoretic uncertainty quantification can address these concerns and provide a convenient framework for evaluating the trustworthiness of generated outputs, in particular, for domain adaptation. We consider a case study in photoplethysmography time series denoising for Atrial Fibrillation classification. This formalises a well-known heuristic method of using a downstream classifier to assess the quality of generated outputs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2026.
Builds on
17 of 29 references.
References · 17
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
- 2016Image-to-Image Translation with Conditional Adversarial Networkscited by 4,527
- 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
- 2016Precomputed Real-Time Texture Synthesis with Markovian Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 192
- 2019A review of domain adaptation without target labelscited by 156
- 2018How good is my GAN?cited by 74
- 2016Classification accuracy as a proxy for two sample testingcited by 42
- 2024Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertaintycited by 42
- 2024On Subjective Uncertainty Quantification and Calibration in Natural Language Generationcited by 16
- 2023On the Trustworthiness Landscape of State-of-the-art Generative Models: A Survey and Outlookcited by 15
- 2021A Concise Review of Transfer Learningcited by 13
- 2023Calibration in Machine Learning Uncertainty Quantification: beyond consistency to target adaptivitycited by 13
5 more
- 2025A Pragmatic Note on Evaluating Generative Models with Fr'echet Inception Distance for Retinal Image Synthesiscited by 9
- 2023Can bin-wise scaling improve consistency and adaptivity of prediction uncertainty for machine learning regression ?cited by 4
- 2025Trustworthy image-to-image translation: evaluating uncertainty calibration in unpaired training scenarioscited by 4
- 2023On Calibrating Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 3
- 2025Uncertainty quantification with approximate variational learning for wearable photoplethysmography prediction taskscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.