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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".