You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We study the recently introduced stability training as a general-purpose method to increase the robustness of deep neural networks against input perturbations. In particular, we explore its use as an alternative to data augmentation and validate its performance against a number of distortion types and transformations including adversarial examples. In our ImageNet-scale image classification experiments stability training performs on a par or even outperforms data augmentation for specific transformations, while consistently offering improved robustness against a broader range of distortion strengths and types unseen during training, a considerably smaller hyperparameter dependence and less potentially negative side effects compared to data augmentation.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Semi-supervised learning has proven to be a powerful paradigm for leveraging unlabeled data to mitigate the reliance on large labeled datasets. In this work, we unify the current dominant approaches for semi-supervised learning to produce a new algorithm, MixMatch, that works by guessing low-entropy labels for data-augmented unlabeled examples and mixing labeled and unlabeled data using MixUp. We show that MixMatch obtains state-of-the-art results by a large margin across many datasets and labeled data amounts. For example, on CIFAR-10 with 250 labels, we reduce error rate by a factor of 4 (from 38 to 11 ) and by a factor of 2 on STL-10. We also demonstrate how MixMatch can help achieve a dramatically better accuracy-privacy trade-off for differential privacy. Finally, we perform an ablation study to tease apart which components of MixMatch are most important for its success.

[2]: Effective convolutional neural networks are trained on large sets of labeled data. However, creating large labeled datasets is a very costly and time-consuming task. Semi-supervised learning uses unlabeled data to train a model with higher accuracy when there is a limited set of labeled data available. In this paper, we consider the problem of semi-supervised learning with convolutional neural networks. Techniques such as randomized data augmentation, dropout and random max-pooling provide better generalization and stability for classifiers that are trained using gradient descent. Multiple passes of an individual sample through the network might lead to different predictions due to the non-deterministic behavior of these techniques. We propose an unsupervised loss function that takes advantage of the stochastic nature of these methods and minimizes the difference between the predictions of multiple passes of a training sample through the network. We evaluate the proposed method on several benchmark datasets.

[3]: The recently proposed Temporal Ensembling has achieved state-of-the-art results in several semi-supervised learning benchmarks. It maintains an exponential moving average of label predictions on each training example, and penalizes predictions that are inconsistent with this target. However, because the targets change only once per epoch, Temporal Ensembling becomes unwieldy when learning large datasets. To overcome this problem, we propose Mean Teacher, a method that averages model weights instead of label predictions. As an additional benefit, Mean Teacher improves test accuracy and enables training with fewer labels than Temporal Ensembling. Without changing the network architecture, Mean Teacher achieves an error rate of 4.35 on SVHN with 250 labels, outperforming Temporal Ensembling trained with 1000 labels. We also show that a good network architecture is crucial to performance. Combining Mean Teacher and Residual Networks, we improve the state of the art on CIFAR-10 with 4000 labels from 10.55 to 6.28 , and on ImageNet 2012 with 10 of the labels from 35.24 to 9.11 .

[4]: In this paper, we present a simple and efficient method for training deep neural networks in a semi-supervised setting where only a small portion of training data is labeled. We introduce self-ensembling, where we form a consensus prediction of the unknown labels using the outputs of the network-in-training on different epochs, and most importantly, under different regularization and input augmentation conditions. This ensemble prediction can be expected to be a better predictor for the unknown labels than the output of the network at the most recent training epoch, and can thus be used as a target for training. Using our method, we set new records for two standard semi-supervised learning benchmarks, reducing the (non-augmented) classification error rate from 18.44 to 7.05 in SVHN with 500 labels and from 18.63 to 16.55 in CIFAR-10 with 4000 labels, and further to 5.12 and 12.16 by enabling the standard augmentations. We additionally obtain a clear improvement in CIFAR-100 classification accuracy by using random images from the Tiny Images dataset as unlabeled extra inputs during training. Finally, we demonstrate good tolerance to incorrect labels.

[5]: 

[6]: We propose a new regularization method based on virtual adversarial loss: a new measure of local smoothness of the conditional label distribution given input. Virtual adversarial loss is defined as the robustness of the conditional label distribution around each input data point against local perturbation. Unlike adversarial training, our method defines the adversarial direction without label information and is hence applicable to semi-supervised learning. Because the directions in which we smooth the model are only “virtually” adversarial, we call our method virtual adversarial training (VAT). The computational cost of VAT is relatively low. For neural networks, the approximated gradient of virtual adversarial loss can be computed with no more than two pairs of forward- and back-propagations. In our experiments, we applied VAT to supervised and semi-supervised learning tasks on multiple benchmark datasets. With a simple enhancement of the algorithm based on the entropy minimization principle, our VAT achieves state-of-the-art performance for semi-supervised learning tasks on SVHN and CIFAR-10.

[7]: Semi-supervised learning (SSL) provides a powerful framework for leveraging unlabeled data when labels are limited or expensive to obtain. SSL algorithms based on deep neural networks have recently proven successful on standard benchmark tasks. However, we argue that these benchmarks fail to address many issues that these algorithms would face in real-world applications. After creating a unified reimplementation of various widely-used SSL techniques, we test them in a suite of experiments designed to address these issues. We find that the performance of simple baselines which do not use unlabeled data is often underreported, that SSL methods differ in sensitivity to the amount of labeled and unlabeled data, and that performance can degrade substantially when the unlabeled dataset contains out-of-class examples. To help guide SSL research towards real-world applicability, we make our unified reimplemention and evaluation platform publicly available.

[8]:
There is a large body of works on related methods in the context of semi-supervised learning. The most relevant works for the present context can be subsumed as consistency smoothness enforcing methods. The common idea in all cases is to impose a consistency constraint [7] to enforce similar classification behavior for the original and perturbed input. On the labeled subset of the data both the original loss and the consistency loss can be evaluated, whereas on the unlabeled subset only the consistency loss is imposed. The focus in these works lies on incorporating information from the unlabeled subset to increase the model performance but none of them considered the aspect of robustness with respect to input distorsions. The main difference between the different methods lies in the way how the consistency constraint is implemented [8] [4] [2] [3] [6] [5] [1] .