NegRefine: Refining Negative Label-Based Zero-Shot OOD Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models like CLIP have enabled zero-shot OOD detection by leveraging both image and textual label information. Among these, negative label-based methods such as NegLabel and CSP have shown promising results by utilizing a lexicon of words to define negative labels for distinguishing OOD samples. However, these methods suffer from detecting in-distribution samples as OOD due to negative labels that are subcategories of in-distribution labels or proper nouns. They also face limitations in handling images that match multiple in-distribution and negative labels. We propose NegRefine, a novel negative label refinement framework for zero-shot OOD detection. By introducing a filtering mechanism to exclude subcategory labels and proper nouns from the negative label set and incorporating a multi-matching-aware scoring function that dynamically adjusts the contributions of multiple labels matching an image, NegRefine ensures a more robust separation between in-distribution and OOD samples. We evaluate NegRefine on large-scale benchmarks, including ImageNet-1K. Source code is available at https://github.com/ah-ansari/NegRefine.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".