The Effect of Optimization Methods on the Robustness of Out-of-Distribution Detection Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it