Out-of-distribution detection for regression tasks: parameter versus predictor entropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is crucial to detect when an instance lies downright too far from the training samples for the machine learning model to be trusted, a challenge known as out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. For neural networks, one approach to this task consists of learning a diversity of predictors that all can explain the training data. This information can be used to estimate the epistemic uncertainty at a given newly observed instance in terms of a measure of the disagreement of the predictions. Evaluation and certification of the ability of a method to detect OOD require specifying instances which are likely to occur in deployment yet on which no prediction is available. Focusing on regression tasks, we choose a simple yet insightful model for this OOD distribution and conduct an empirical evaluation of the ability of various methods to discriminate OOD samples from the data. Moreover, we exhibit evidence that a diversity of parameters may fail to translate to a diversity of predictors. Based on the choice of an OOD distribution, we propose a new way of estimating the entropy of a distribution on predictors based on nearest neighbors in function space. This leads to a variational objective which, combined with the family of distributions given by a generative neural network, systematically produces a diversity of predictors that provides a robust way to detect OOD samples.
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 | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".