Domain Generalization by Rejecting Extreme Augmentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data augmentation is one of the most effective techniques for regularizing deep learning models and improving recognition performance in various tasks and domains. However, this holds for standard in-domain settings, in which the training and test data follow the same distribution. For the out-of-domain case, where the test data follow a different and unknown distribution, the best recipe for data augmentation is unclear. In this paper, we show that for out-of-domain and domain generalization settings, data augmentation can provide a conspicuous and robust improvement in performance. To do that, we propose a simple training procedure: (i) use uniform sampling on standard data augmentation transformations; (ii) increase the strength transformations to account for the higher data variance expected when working out-of-domain, and (iii) devise a new reward function to reject extreme transformations that can harm the training. With this procedure, our data augmentation scheme achieves a level of accuracy comparable to or better than state-of-the-art methods on benchmark domain generalization datasets. Code: https://github.com/Masseeh/DCAug
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".