A Geometric Explanation of the Likelihood OOD Detection Paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Likelihood-based deep generative models (DGMs) commonly exhibit a puzzling behaviour: when trained on a relatively complex dataset, they assign higher likelihood values to out-of-distribution (OOD) data from simpler sources. Adding to the mystery, OOD samples are never generated by these DGMs despite having higher likelihoods. This two-pronged paradox has yet to be conclusively explained, making likelihood-based OOD detection unreliable. Our primary observation is that high-likelihood regions will not be generated if they contain minimal probability mass. We demonstrate how this seeming contradiction of large densities yet low probability mass can occur around data confined to low-dimensional manifolds. We also show that this scenario can be identified through local intrinsic dimension (LID) estimation, and propose a method for OOD detection which pairs the likelihoods and LID estimates obtained from a pre-trained DGM. Our method can be applied to normalizing flows and score-based diffusion models, and obtains results which match or surpass state-of-the-art OOD detection benchmarks using the same DGM backbones. Our code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/dgm_ood_detection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".