Harold Benoit,Liangze Jiang,Andrei Atanov,Oğuzhan Fatih Kar,Mattia Rigotti,Amir Zamir
Abstract:Supervised learning datasets may contain multiple cues that explain the training set equally well, i.e., learning any of them would lead to the correct predictions on the training data. However, many of them can be spurious, i.e., lose their predictive power under a distribution shift and consequently fail to generalize to out-of-distribution (OOD) data. Recently developed "diversification" methods (Lee et al., 2023; Pagliardini et al., 2023) approach this problem by finding multiple diverse hypotheses that rely on different features. This paper aims to study this class of methods and identify the key components contributing to their OOD generalization abilities.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the generalization ability of machine - learning models on out - of - distribution (OOD) data. Specifically, there may be multiple features (or cues) in the supervised learning dataset, which can all well explain the data on the training set, but in the case of distribution changes, many features may lose their predictive ability, resulting in poor performance of the model on OOD data.
### Research Background and Problem Description
1. **Problem Definition**:
- **Spurious Features**: These features are related to the true labels in the training data distribution but lose their predictive ability after the distribution changes.
- **OOD Generalization**: Achieve good performance of the model on unseen test data with different distributions.
2. **Limitations of Existing Methods**:
- The standard Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) method tends to select the hypothesis that is most consistent with the inductive bias of the learning algorithm, which may lead to the selection of wrong (spurious) features and thus fail when the distribution changes.
- Recently proposed "diversification" methods solve this problem by finding multiple hypotheses that depend on different features.
### Main Contributions of the Paper
1. **Sensitivity of Diversification Methods to the Unlabeled Data Distribution**:
- Diversification methods are very sensitive to the distribution of unlabeled data, and deviation from the optimal distribution will lead to a significant performance degradation (up to a 30% absolute accuracy drop).
2. **Diversification Methods Are Not Sufficient to Achieve OOD Generalization Alone**:
- Mere diversification is not sufficient to effectively achieve OOD generalization, and additional inductive bias (e.g., the choice of learning algorithm) is required. In particular, choosing the appropriate model architecture and pre - training method is crucial, and sub - optimal choices may lead to an accuracy drop of up to 20%.
3. **Inter - Dependency between Unlabeled Data and the Learning Algorithm**:
- There is an interdependent relationship between unlabeled data and the learning algorithm, that is, the best choice of one depends on the other. For example, for a fixed training data, one architecture (such as MLP) can be made to generalize by changing the unlabeled data, while another architecture (such as ResNet18) will perform with the accuracy of random guessing, and vice versa.
4. **Limited Effect of Increasing the Number of Diverse Hypotheses**:
- In practice, increasing more diverse hypotheses does not significantly improve the OOD generalization ability, and there is no obvious improvement beyond two hypotheses.
### Conclusion
These findings provide a clearer direction for understanding and designing diversification methods, emphasizing the impact of the unlabeled data distribution, the choice of learning algorithm, and the interdependency between the two on the OOD generalization ability. These research results can guide practitioners on how to better use existing methods and provide references for researchers to develop new and better methods.
### Formula Summary
- **Expected Loss**:
\[
L_D(h, h')=\mathbb{E}_{x\sim D}[L(h(x), h'(x))]
\]
- **Optimal Hypothesis Set**:
\[
H_t^*:=\arg\min_{h\in H}L_{D_t}(h, h^*),\quad H_{ood}^*:=\arg\min_{h\in H}L_{D_{ood}}(h, h^*)
\]
- **Diversification Loss**:
- DivDis:
\[
A_D(h_1, h_2)=D_{KL}(P(h_1, h_2)\|P_{h_1}\otimes P_{h_2})+\lambda\sum_{i\in\{1, 2\}}D_{KL}(P_{h_i}\|\hat{P})
\]
- D - BAT:
\[
A_D(h_1, h_2)=\mathbb{E}_{x\sim D}[-\log(P_{h_1}(