Unsupervised Layer-Wise Score Aggregation for Textual OOD Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is a rapidly growing field due to new robustness and security requirements driven by an increased number of AI-based systems. Existing OOD textual detectors often rely on anomaly scores (\textit{e.g.}, Mahalanobis distance) computed on the embedding output of the last layer of the encoder. In this work, we observe that OOD detection performance varies greatly depending on the task and layer output. More importantly, we show that the usual choice (the last layer) is rarely the best one for OOD detection and that far better results can be achieved, provided that an oracle selects the best layer. We propose a data-driven, unsupervised method to leverage this observation to combine layer-wise anomaly scores. In addition, we extend classical textual OOD benchmarks by including classification tasks with a more significant number of classes (up to 150), which reflects more realistic settings. On this augmented benchmark, we show that the proposed post-aggregation methods achieve robust and consistent results comparable to using the best layer according to an oracle while removing manual feature selection altogether.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".