The uncertainty measurement of classified results is especially important in areas requiring limited human resources for higher accuracy. For instance, data-driven algorithms diagnosing diseases need accurate uncertainty score to decide whether additional but limited quantity of experts are needed for rectification. However, few uncertainty models focus on improving the performance of text classification where human resources are involved. To achieve this, we aim at generating accurate uncertainty score by improving the confidence of winning scores. Thus, a model called MSD, which includes three independent components as “mix-up”, “self-ensembling”, “distinctiveness score”, is proposed to improve the accuracy of uncertainty score by reducing the effect of overconfidence of winning score and considering the impact of different categories of uncertainty simultaneously. MSD can be applied with different Deep Neural Networks. Extensive experiments with ablation setting are conducted on four real-world datasets, on which, competitive results are obtained.

Management of collaborative documents can be difficult, given the profusion of edits and comments that multiple authors make during a document’s evolution. Reliably modeling the relationship between edits and comments is a crucial step towards helping the user keep track of a document in flux. A number of authoring tasks, such as categorizing and summarizing edits, detecting completed to-dos, and visually rearranging comments could benefit from such a contribution. Thus, in this paper we explore the relationship between comments and edits by defining two novel, related tasks: Comment Ranking and Edit Anchoring. We begin by collecting a dataset with more than half a million comment-edit pairs based on Wikipedia revision histories. We then propose a hierarchical multi-layer deep neural-network to model the relationship between edits and comments. Our architecture tackles both Comment Ranking and Edit Anchoring tasks by encoding specific edit actions such as additions and deletions, while also accounting for document context. In a number of evaluation settings, our experimental results show that our approach outperforms several strong baselines significantly. We are able to achieve a precision@1 of 71.0% and a precision@3 of 94.4% for Comment Ranking, while we achieve 74.4% accuracy on Edit Anchoring.