Diverse Prototypical Ensembles Improve Robustness to Subpopulation Shift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subpopulationtion shift, characterized by a disparity in subpopulation distributibetween theween the training and target datasets, can significantly degrade the performance of machine learning models. Current solutions to subpopulation shift involve modifying empirical risk minimization with re-weighting strategies to improve generalization. This strategy relies on assumptions about the number and nature of subpopulations and annotations on group membership, which are unavailable for many real-world datasets. Instead, we propose using an ensemble of diverse classifiers to adaptively capture risk associated with subpopulations. Given a feature extractor network, we replace its standard linear classification layer with a mixture of prototypical classifiers, where each member is trained to classify the data while focusing on different features and samples from other members. In empirical evaluation on nine real-world datasets, covering diverse domains and kinds of subpopulation shift, our method of Diverse Prototypical Ensembles (DPEs) often outperforms the prior state-of-the-art in worst-group accuracy. The code is available at https://github.com/minhto2802/dpe4subpop
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".