Out-of-distribution Detection in Classifiers via Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By design, discriminatively trained neural network classifiers produce reliable predictions only for in-distribution samples. For their real-world deployments, detecting out-of-distribution (OOD) samples is essential. Assuming OOD to be outside the closed boundary of in-distribution, typical neural classifiers do not contain the knowledge of this boundary for OOD detection during inference. There have been recent approaches to instill this knowledge in classifiers by explicitly training the classifier with OOD samples close to the in-distribution boundary. However, these generated samples fail to cover the entire in-distribution boundary effectively, thereby resulting in a sub-optimal OOD detector. In this paper, we analyze the feasibility of such approaches by investigating the complexity of producing such "effective" OOD samples. We also propose a novel algorithm to generate such samples using a manifold learning network (e.g., variational autoencoder) and then train an n+1 classifier for OOD detection, where the $n+1^{th}$ class represents the OOD samples. We compare our approach against several recent classifier-based OOD detectors on MNIST and Fashion-MNIST datasets. Overall the proposed approach consistently performs better than the others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".