PreprintCited by 56Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Understanding the Failure Modes of Out-of-Distribution Generalization

Open access
Nagarajan, Vaishnavh, Andreassen, Anders, Neyshabur, Behnam·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Empirical studies suggest that machine learning models often rely on features, such as the background, that may be spuriously correlated with the label only during training time, resulting in poor accuracy during test-time. In this work, we identify the fundamental factors that give rise to this behavior, by explaining why models fail this way {\em even} in easy-to-learn tasks where one would expect these models to succeed. In particular, through a theoretical study of gradient-descent-trained linear classifiers on some easy-to-learn tasks, we uncover two complementary failure modes. These modes arise from how spurious correlations induce two kinds of skews in the data: one geometric in nature, and another, statistical in nature. Finally, we construct natural modifications of image classification datasets to understand when these failure modes can arise in practice. We also design experiments to isolate the two failure modes when training modern neural networks on these datasets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.15775

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work establishes that in many tasks, in-distribution loss is a strong predictor of out-of-distribution generalization.

    “Prior work on out-of-distribution generalization establishes that in many tasks, in-distribution loss is a strong predictor of out-of-distribution generalization [14].”

    From Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes minimizing in-distribution training loss, while Section 3 (p. 4) shows an example in which an ERM classifier’s out-of-distribution accuracy deteriorates. Neither passage assesses whether in-distribution loss is a strong predictor of out-of-distribution generalization across many tasks. Searches for that relationship and for loss–accuracy correlations found no passage establishing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nagarajan, V., Andreassen, A., & Neyshabur, B.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094749184
Cited by
55
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
out-of-distribution generalization, spurious correlations, failure modes, linear classifiers, gradient descent, image classification dataset, artificial neural networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review