The Effect of Optimization Methods on the Robustness of Out-of-Distribution Detection Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have become the de facto learning mechanism in different domains. Their tendency to perform unreliably on out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs hinders their adoption in critical domains. Several approaches have been proposed for detecting OOD inputs. However, existing approaches still lack robustness. In this paper, we shed light on the robustness of OOD detection (OODD) approaches by revealing the important role of optimization methods. We show that OODD approaches are sensitive to the type of optimization method used during training deep models. Optimization methods can provide different solutions to a non-convex problem and so these solutions may or may not satisfy the assumptions (e.g., distributions of deep features) made by OODD approaches. Furthermore, we propose a robustness score that takes into account the role of optimization methods. This provides a sound way to compare OODD approaches. In addition to comparing several OODD approaches using our proposed robustness score, we demonstrate that some optimization methods provide better solutions for OODD approaches.
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 | 0.020 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".