CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 253Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningMachine Learning and Data Classification

Towards Out-Of-Distribution Generalization: A Survey

Open access
Liu, Jiashuo, Shen, Zheyan, He, Yue, Zhang, Xingxuan, Xu, Renzhe, Yu, Han, Cui, Peng·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2108.13624arXiv 2108.13624
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Traditional machine learning paradigms are based on the assumption that both training and test data follow the same statistical pattern, which is mathematically referred to as Independent and Identically Distributed ($i.i.d.$). However, in real-world applications, this $i.i.d.$ assumption often fails to hold due to unforeseen distributional shifts, leading to considerable degradation in model performance upon deployment. This observed discrepancy indicates the significance of investigating the Out-of-Distribution (OOD) generalization problem. OOD generalization is an emerging topic of machine learning research that focuses on complex scenarios wherein the distributions of the test data differ from those of the training data. This paper represents the first comprehensive, systematic review of OOD generalization, encompassing a spectrum of aspects from problem definition, methodological development, and evaluation procedures, to the implications and future directions of the field. Our discussion begins with a precise, formal characterization of the OOD generalization problem. Following that, we categorize existing methodologies into three segments: unsupervised representation learning, supervised model learning, and optimization, according to their positions within the overarching learning process. We provide an in-depth discussion on representative methodologies for each category, further elucidating the theoretical links between them. Subsequently, we outline the prevailing benchmark datasets employed in OOD generalization studies. To conclude, we overview the existing body of work in this domain and suggest potential avenues for future research on OOD generalization. A summary of the OOD generalization methodologies surveyed in this paper can be accessed at http://out-of-distribution-generalization.com.

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.2108.13624

Cites

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?

  • There is no guarantee that a model trained on large datasets will handle complex scenarios or generalize better.

    “worse, there is no guarantee that the resulting model will handle complex scenarios or generalize better.”

    From TT-SI: Self-Improving LLM Agents with Test-Time Training (2026) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2021

    The Conclusion and Future Directions (p. 29) says models pre-trained on large-scale datasets inevitably encounter distribution shifts in downstream tasks and need stronger out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. The Introduction (p. 1) reports that models can perform poorly under severe shifts. This supports the lack of a generalization guarantee in OOD settings, but the paper does not establish the broader claim about handling complex scenarios generally or generalizing better. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Test distributions often differ from training distributions, which impairs model generalization to novel or complex scenarios.

    “Distributional Shift: Test distributions P test often differ from the training distribution P train (i.e., P test = P train ). This means the empirical risk ˆ L train ( θ ) provides a misleading picture of the true test risk L test ( θ ) = E ( x,y ) ∼P test [ ℓ ( F θ ( x ) , y )] , which in turn impairs the model's generalization to novel or complex scenarios (Liu et al., 2021).”

    From TT-SI: Self-Improving LLM Agents with Test-Time Training (2026) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2021

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 233 · Cited by 253

Research works printed but not linked: 280

  1. [1][1] J. Adebayo, J. Gilmer, M. Muelly, I. Goodfellow, M. Hardt, and B. Kim. Sanity checks for saliency maps. In NeurIPS , pages 9505-9515, 2018. -
  2. [2][2] A. Agarwal, A. Beygelzimer, M. Dudík, J. Langford, and H. Wallach. A reductions approach to fair classification. In ICML , pages 60-69. PMLR, 2018. -
  3. [3][3] F. Ahmed, Y. Bengio, H. van Seijen, and A. Courville. Systematic generalisation with group invariant predictions. In ICLR , 2021. -
  4. [4][4] K. Ahuja, K. Shanmugam, K. Varshney, and A. Dhurandhar. Invariant risk minimization games. In ICML , pages 145-155. PMLR, 2020. -
  5. [5][5] K. Ahuja, J. Wang, A. Dhurandhar, K. Shanmugam, and K. R. Varshney. Empirical or invariant risk minimization? a sample complexity perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.16412 , 2020. - · arXiv
  6. [7][7] C. F. Aliferis, A. Statnikov, I. Tsamardinos, S. Mani, and X. D. Koutsoukos. Local causal and markov blanket induction for causal discovery and feature selection for classification part i: algorithms and empirical evaluation. JMLR , 11(1), 2010. -
  7. [8][8] C. F. Aliferis, A. Statnikov, I. Tsamardinos, S. Mani, and X. D. Koutsoukos. Local causal and markov blanket induction for causal discovery and feature selection for classification part ii: analysis and extensions. JMLR , 11(1), 2010. -
  8. [9][9] D. Alvarez-Melis and T. Jaakkola. A causal framework for explaining the predictions of black-box sequence-to-sequence models. In EMNLP , pages 412-421, 2017. -
  9. [11][11] M. Arjovsky, L. Bottou, I. Gulrajani, and D. Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893 , 2019. - · arXiv
  10. [12][12] S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and S. Wager. Approximate residual balancing: De-biased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07125 , 2016. - · arXiv
  11. [13][13] B. Aubin, A. Słowik, M. Arjovsky, L. Bottou, and D. Lopez-Paz. Linear unit-tests for invariance discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.10867 , 2021. - · arXiv
  12. [14][14] Y. Balaji, S. Sankaranarayanan, and R. Chellappa. Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta-regularization. NeurIPS , 31:998-1008, 2018. -
  13. [15][15] P. Bandi, O. Geessink, Q. Manson, M. Van Dijk, M. Balkenhol, M. Hermsen, B. E. Bejnordi, B. Lee, K. Paeng, A. Zhong, et al. From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the camelyon17 challenge. IEEE TMI , 38(2):550-560, 2018. -
  14. [16][16] S. Beery, A. Agarwal, E. Cole, and V. Birodkar. The iwildcam 2021 competition dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03494 , 2021. - · arXiv
  15. [17][17] S. Ben-David, J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, A. Kulesza, F. Pereira, and J. W. Vaughan. A theory of learning from different domains. Machine learning , 79(1-2):151-175, 2010. -
  16. [18][18] Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE TPAMI , 35(8):1798-1828, 2013. -
  17. [20][20] D. Bertsimas, V. Gupta, and N. Kallus. Data-driven robust optimization. Mathematical Programming , 167(2):235-292, 2018. -
  18. [21][21] G. Blanchard, G. Lee, and C. Scott. Generalizing from several related classification tasks to a new unlabeled sample. NeurIPS , 24:2178-2186, 2011. -
  19. [22][22] J. H. Blanchet, Y. Kang, K. R. A. Murthy, and F. Zhang. Data-driven optimal transport cost selection for distributionally robust optimization. In 2019 Winter Simulation Conference, WSC 2019, National Harbor, MD, USA, December 8-11, 2019 , pages 3740-3751. IEEE, 2019. doi: 10. 1109/WSC40007.2019.9004785. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC40007.2019.9004785 . - · DOI
  20. [23][23] J. H. Blanchet, K. R. A. Murthy, and F. Zhang. Optimal transport-based distributionally robust optimization: Structural properties and iterative schemes. Math. Oper. Res. , 47(2):1500-1529, 2022. doi: 10.1287/moor.2021.1178. URL https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2021.1178 . - · DOI
  21. [24][24] D. Borkan, L. Dixon, J. Sorensen, N. Thain, and L. Vasserman. Nuanced metrics for measuring unintended bias with real data for text classification. In WWW , pages 491-500, 2019. -
  22. [25][25] T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS 2020 , 2020. -
  23. [26][26] P. Bühlmann. Invariance, causality and robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08233 , 2018. - · arXiv
  24. [27][27] T. T. Cai, H. Namkoong, and S. Yadlowsky. Diagnosing model performance under distribution shift. CoRR , abs/2303.02011, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.02011. URL https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2303.02011 . - · DOI
  25. [28][28] F. M. Carlucci, A. D'Innocente, S. Bucci, B. Caputo, and T. Tommasi. Domain generalization by solving jigsaw puzzles. In CVPR , pages 2229-2238, 2019. -
  26. [29][29] J. Cha, S. Chun, K. Lee, H. Cho, S. Park, Y. Lee, and S. Park. SWAD: domain generalization by seeking flat minima. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual , pages 22405-22418, 2021. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2021/hash/bcb41ccdc4363c6848a1d760f26c28a0-Abstract.html . -
  27. [30][30] S. Chang, Y. Zhang, M. Yu, and T. S. Jaakkola. Invariant rationalization. In ICML , volume 119 of PMLR , pages 1448-1458. PMLR, 2020. -
  28. [31][31] R. Chen and I. C. Paschalidis. A robust learning approach for regression models based on distributionally robust optimization. JMLR , 19(1):517-564, 2018. -
  29. [32][32] T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1597-1607. PMLR, 2020. -
  30. [33][33] T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. E. Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In ICML 2020 , volume 119 of PMLR , pages 1597-1607. PMLR, 2020. -
  31. [34][34] X. Chen, H. Fan, R. Girshick, and K. He. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297 , 2020. - · arXiv
  32. [35][35] Y. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. Bian, H. Yang, M. Kaili, B. Xie, T. Liu, B. Han, and J. Cheng. Learning causally invariant representations for out-of-distribution generalization on graphs. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 35, pages 22131-22148. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2022/ file/8b21a7ea42cbcd1c29a7a88c444cce45-Paper-Conference.pdf . -
  33. [36][36] S. Chiappa. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In AAAI , volume 33, pages 7801-7808, 2019. -
  34. [37][37] S. Choi, T. Kim, M. Jeong, H. Park, and C. Kim. Meta batch-instance normalization for generalizable person re-identification. In CVPR , pages 3425-3435, 2021. -
  35. [39][39] G. C. Chow. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica , 28(3):591-605, 1960. -
  36. [40][40] G. Christie, N. Fendley, J. Wilson, and R. Mukherjee. Functional map of the world. In CVPR , pages 6172-6180, 2018. -
  37. [41][41] E. Creager, J.-H. Jacobsen, and R. Zemel. Environment inference for invariant learning. In ICML , pages 2189-2200. PMLR, 2021. -
  38. [42][42] G. Csurka. Domain adaptation for visual applications: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05374 , 2017. - · arXiv
  39. [43][43] P. Dabkowski and Y. Gal. Real time image saliency for black box classifiers. In NeurIPS , pages 6967-6976, 2017. -
  40. [44][44] E. Delage and Y. Ye. Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Oper. Res. , 58(3):595-612, May 2010. ISSN 0030-364X. -
  41. [45][45] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR , pages 248-255. Ieee, 2009. -
  42. [47][47] F. Ding, M. Hardt, J. Miller, and L. Schmidt. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual , pages 6478-6490, 2021. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/ 32e54441e6382a7fbacbbbaf3c450059-Abstract.html . -
  43. [48][48] Z. Ding and Y. Fu. Deep domain generalization with structured low-rank constraint. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 27(1):304-313, 2017. -
  44. [49][49] A. Dittadi, F. Träuble, F. Locatello, M. Wüthrich, V. Agrawal, O. Winther, S. Bauer, and B. Schölkopf. On the transfer of disentangled representations in realistic settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14407 , 2020. - · arXiv
  45. [50][50] Q. Dong, M. Awais, F. Zhou, C. Xie, T. Hu, Y. Yang, S. Bae, and Z. Li. Zood: Exploiting model zoo for out-of-distribution generalization. In NeurIPS , 2022. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2022/hash/ cd305fdee96836d5cc1de94577d71b61-Abstract-Conference.html . -
  46. [51][51] Q. Dou, D. Coelho de Castro, K. Kamnitsas, and B. Glocker. Domain generalization via model-agnostic learning of semantic features. NeurIPS , 32:6450-6461, 2019. -
  47. [52][52] S. Dou, R. Zheng, T. Wu, S. Gao, Q. Zhang, Y. Wu, and X. Huang. Decorrelate irrelevant, purify relevant: Overcome textual spurious correlations from a feature perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08048 , 2022. - · arXiv
  48. [53][53] Y. Du, J. Xu, H. Xiong, Q. Qiu, X. Zhen, C. G. Snoek, and L. Shao. Learning to learn with variational information bottleneck for domain generalization. In ECCV , pages 200-216. Springer, 2020. -
  49. [54][54] Y. Du, X. Zhen, L. Shao, and C. G. Snoek. Metanorm: Learning to normalize few-shot batches across domains. In ICLR , 2020. -
  50. [55][55] J. Duchi and H. Namkoong. Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08750 , 2018. - · arXiv
  51. [56][56] J. Duchi, T. Hashimoto, and H. Namkoong. Distributionally robust losses for latent covariate mixtures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13982 , 2020. - · arXiv
  52. [57][57] J. C. Duchi, T. Hashimoto, and H. Namkoong. Distributionally robust losses against mixture covariate shifts. Under review , 2019. -
  53. [59][59] C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference , pages 214-226, 2012. -
  54. [60][60] A. D'Innocente and B. Caputo. Domain generalization with domain-specific aggregation modules. In German Conference on Pattern Recognition , pages 187-198. Springer, 2018. -
  55. [61][61] H. Edwards and A. Storkey. Censoring representations with an adversary. In ICLR , 2016. -
  56. [62][62] L. El Ghaoui and H. Lebret. Robust solutions to least-squares problems with uncertain data. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 18(4):1035-1064, 1997. doi: 10.1137/S0895479896298130. - · DOI
  57. [63][63] P. M. Esfahani and D. Kuhn. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Mathematical Programming , 171(1-2):115-166, 2018. -
  58. [65][65] S. Fan, X. Wang, C. Shi, P. Cui, and B. Wang. Generalizing graph neural networks on out-of-distribution graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10657 , 2021. - · arXiv
  59. [66][66] C. Fang, Y. Xu, and D. N. Rockmore. Unbiased metric learning: On the utilization of multiple datasets and web images for softening bias. In ICCV , pages 1657-1664, 2013. -
  60. [67][67] M. Feldman, S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasubramanian. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 259-268, 2015. -
  61. [68][68] C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In ICML , pages 1126-1135. PMLR, 2017. -
  62. [69][69] J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, et al. The elements of statistical learning , volume 1. Springer series in statistics New York, 2001. -
  63. [70][70] J. H. Friedman, B. E. Popescu, et al. Predictive learning via rule ensembles. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 2(3):916-954, 2008. -
  64. [71][71] C. Frogner, S. Claici, E. Chien, and J. Solomon. Incorporating unlabeled data into distributionally robust learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.07729 , 2019. - · arXiv
  65. [73][73] J. L. Gamella and C. Heinze-Deml. Active Invariant Causal Prediction: Experiment Selection through Stability. In NeurIPS , 2020. -
  66. [74][74] Y. Ganin and V. Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In ICML , pages 1180-1189. PMLR, 2015. -
  67. [75][75] Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Laviolette, M. Marchand, and V. Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. JMLR , 2016. -
  68. [76][76] R. Gao, X. Chen, and A. J. Kleywegt. Wasserstein distributional robustness and regularization in statistical learning. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv-1712, 2017. -
  69. [77][77] S. Garg, Y. Wu, S. Balakrishnan, and Z. Lipton. A unified view of label shift estimation. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, NeurIPS , volume 33, pages 3290-3300. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. -
  70. [78][78] V. Garg, A. T. Kalai, K. Ligett, and S. Wu. Learn to expect the unexpected: Probably approximately correct domain generalization. In AISTATS , pages 3574-3582. PMLR, 2021. -
  71. [79][79] C. Geng, S.-j. Huang, and S. Chen. Recent advances in open set recognition: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 43(10):3614-3631, 2020. -
  72. [80][80] M. Ghifary, W. B. Kleijn, M. Zhang, and D. Balduzzi. Domain generalization for object recognition with multi-task autoencoders. In ICCV , pages 2551-2559, 2015. -
  73. [81][81] R. Gong, W. Li, Y. Chen, and L. V. Gool. Dlow: Domain flow for adaptation and generalization. In CVPR , pages 2477-2486, 2019. -
  74. [82][82] E. Gorbunov, F. Hanzely, and P. Richtárik. Local sgd: Unified theory and new efficient methods. In AISTATS , pages 3556-3564. PMLR, 2021. -
  75. [83][83] Y. Goyal, Z. Wu, J. Ernst, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee. Counterfactual visual explanations. In ICML , pages 2376-2384, 2019. -
  76. [84][84] J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altché, C. Tallec, P. Richemond, E. Buchatskaya, C. Doersch, B. Avila Pires, Z. Guo, M. Gheshlaghi Azar, B. Piot, k. kavukcuoglu, R. Munos, and M. Valko. Bootstrap your own latent - a new approach to self-supervised learning. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 21271-21284. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. -
  77. [86][86] I. Gulrajani and D. Lopez-Paz. In search of lost domain generalization. In ICLR 2021 . OpenReview.net, 2021. -
  78. [88][88] S. Harary, E. Schwartz, A. Arbelle, P. Staar, S. Abu-Hussein, E. Amrani, R. Herzig, A. Alfassy, R. Giryes, H. Kuehne, et al. Unsupervised domain generalization by learning a bridge across domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02300 , 2021. - · arXiv
  79. [89][89] M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. NeurIPS , 29:3315-3323, 2016. -
  80. [90][90] T. Hashimoto, M. Srivastava, H. Namkoong, and P. Liang. Fairness without demographics in repeated loss minimization. In ICML , pages 1929-1938. PMLR, 2018. -
  81. [91][91] T. J. Hastie and R. J. Tibshirani. Generalized additive models , volume 43. CRC press, 1990. -
  82. [92][92] K. He, H. Fan, Y. Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9729-9738, 2020. -
  83. [93][93] K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y. Li, P. Dollár, and R. Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.06377 , 2021. - · arXiv
  84. [95][95] U. Hébert-Johnson, M. Kim, O. Reingold, and G. Rothblum. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In ICML , pages 1939-1948. PMLR, 2018. -
  85. [96][96] C. Heinze-Deml, J. Peters, and N. Meinshausen. Invariant Causal Prediction for Nonlinear Models. Journal of Causal Inference , 2018. -
  86. [97][97] D. Hendrycks and T. Dietterich. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12261 , 2019. - · arXiv
  87. [98][98] D. Hendrycks, M. Mazeika, and T. G. Dietterich. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. In ICLR , 2019. -
  88. [99][99] D. Hendrycks, S. Basart, N. Mu, S. Kadavath, F. Wang, E. Dorundo, R. Desai, T. Zhu, S. Parajuli, M. Guo, et al. The many faces of robustness: A critical analysis of out-ofdistribution generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16241 , 2020. - · arXiv
  89. [100][100] D. Hendrycks, K. Zhao, S. Basart, J. Steinhardt, and D. Song. Natural adversarial examples. In CVPR , pages 15262-15271, 2021. -
  90. [102][102] T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey. Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05439 , 2020. - · arXiv
  91. [103][103] W. Hu, G. Niu, I. Sato, and M. Sugiyama. Does distributionally robust supervised learning give robust classifiers? ICML , 2016. -
  92. [104][104] X. Huang and S. Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In ICCV , pages 1501-1510, 2017. -
  93. [105][105] Z. Huang, H. Wang, E. P. Xing, and D. Huang. Self-challenging improves cross-domain generalization. In ECCV , pages 124-140, 2020. -
  94. [106][106] B. Y. Idrissi, M. Arjovsky, M. Pezeshki, and D. Lopez-Paz. Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracy. In B. Schölkopf, C. Uhler, and K. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning , volume 177 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 336-351. PMLR, 11-13 Apr 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v177/idrissi22a.html . -
  95. [107][107] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML , pages 448-456. PMLR, 2015. -
  96. [108][108] A. Jacot, F. Gabriel, and C. Hongler. Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2018/ file/5a4be1fa34e62bb8a6ec6b91d2462f5a-Paper.pdf . -
  97. [109][109] C. Jia and Y. Zhang. Prompt-based distribution alignment for domain generalization in text classification. In Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022 , pages 10147-10157. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.690 . -
  98. [110][110] J. Jia. Deep learning and open set malware classification: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04272 , 2020. - · arXiv
  99. [111][111] Y. Jia, J. Zhang, S. Shan, and X. Chen. Single-side domain generalization for face anti-spoofing. In CVPR , pages 8484-8493, 2020. -
  100. [112][112] Y. Jiang and V. Veitch. Invariant and transportable representations for anti-causal domain shifts. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 35, pages 20782-20794. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2022/ file/82e330c1b962ee1e6adb60d01f695366-Paper-Conference.pdf . -
  101. [113][113] W. Jin, R. Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. Domain extrapolation via regret minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03908 , 2020. - · arXiv
  102. [114][114] X. Jin, C. Lan, W. Zeng, and Z. Chen. Style normalization and restitution for domaingeneralization and adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00588 , 2021. - · arXiv
  103. [115][115] P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04977 , 2019. - · arXiv
  104. [116][116] P. Kamath, A. Tangella, D. Sutherland, and N. Srebro. Does invariant risk minimization capture invariance? In AISTATS , pages 4069-4077. PMLR, 2021. -
  105. [118][118] S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In ICML , pages 5132-5143. PMLR, 2020. -
  106. [121][121] H. Kim and A. Mnih. Disentangling by factorising. In ICML , pages 2649-2658. PMLR, 2018. -
  107. [122][122] J. Kim and J. Canny. Interpretable learning for self-driving cars by visualizing causal attention. In ICCV , pages 2942-2950, 2017. -
  108. [124][124] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Y. Bengio and Y. LeCun, editors, 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings , 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 . - · arXiv
  109. [126][126] P. W. Koh and P. Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In ICML , pages 1885-1894, 2017. -
  110. [127][127] P. W. Koh, S. Sagawa, S. M. Xie, M. Zhang, A. Balsubramani, W. Hu, M. Yasunaga, R. L. Phillips, I. Gao, T. Lee, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. In ICML , pages 5637-5664. PMLR, 2021. -
  111. [128][128] A. Koloskova, N. Loizou, S. Boreiri, M. Jaggi, and S. Stich. A unified theory of decentralized sgd with changing topology and local updates. In ICML , pages 5381-5393. PMLR, 2020. -
  112. [129][129] M. Koyama and S. Yamaguchi. Out-of-distribution generalization with maximal invariant predictor. CoRR , abs/2008.01883, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01883 . - · arXiv
  113. [130][130] D. Krueger, E. Caballero, J.-H. Jacobsen, A. Zhang, J. Binas, D. Zhang, R. Le Priol, and A. Courville. Out-of-distribution generalization via risk extrapolation (rex). In ICML , pages 5815-5826. PMLR, 2021. -
  114. [131][131] K. Kuang, P. Cui, S. Athey, R. Xiong, and B. Li. Stable prediction across unknown environments. pages 1617-1626, 2018. -
  115. [132][132] K. Kuang, R. Xiong, P. Cui, S. Athey, and B. Li. Stable prediction with model misspecification and agnostic distribution shift. In AAAI , volume 34, pages 4485-4492, 2020. -
  116. [133][133] K. Kuang, H. Zhang, F. Wu, Y. Zhuang, and A. Zhang. Balance-subsampled stable prediction. CoRR , abs/2006.04381, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04381 . - · arXiv
  117. [134][134] T. D. Kulkarni, W. F. Whitney, P. Kohli, and J. Tenenbaum. Deep convolutional inverse graphics network. NeurIPS , 28, 2015. -
  118. [135][135] S. Lachapelle, T. Deleu, D. Mahajan, I. Mitliagkas, Y. Bengio, S. Lacoste-Julien, and Q. Bertrand. Synergies between disentanglement and sparsity: Generalization and identifiability in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 18171-18206. PMLR, 2023. -
  119. [136][136] P. Lahoti, A. Beutel, J. Chen, K. Lee, F. Prost, N. Thain, X. Wang, and E. Chi. Fairness without demographics through adversarially reweighted learning. In NeurIPS , 2020. -
  120. [138][138] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE , 86(11):2278-2324, 1998. -
  121. [139][139] F. Leeb, G. Lanzillotta, Y. Annadani, M. Besserve, S. Bauer, and B. Schölkopf. Structure by Architecture: Disentangled Representations without Regularization. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:2006.07796, June 2020. - · arXiv
  122. [141][141] D. Levy, Y. Carmon, J. C. Duchi, and A. Sidford. Large-scale methods for distributionally robust optimization. NeurIPS , 33:8847-8860, 2020. -
  123. [142][142] B. Li, Y. Shen, Y. Wang, W. Zhu, C. Reed, D. Li, K. Keutzer, and H. Zhao. Invariant information bottleneck for domain generalization. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 36(7):7399-7407, Jun. 2022. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v36i7.20703. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/20703 . - · DOI
  124. [143][143] D. Li, Y. Yang, Y.-Z. Song, and T. M. Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization. In ICCV , pages 5542-5550, 2017. -
  125. [144][144] D. Li, Y. Yang, Y.-Z. Song, and T. M. Hospedales. Learning to generalize: Meta-learning for domain generalization. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018. -
  126. [145][145] D. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Yang, C. Liu, Y.-Z. Song, and T. M. Hospedales. Episodic training for domain generalization. In ICCV , pages 1446-1455, 2019. -
  127. [146][146] H. Li, S. J. Pan, S. Wang, and A. C. Kot. Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning. In CVPR , pages 5400-5409, 2018. -
  128. [147][147] J. Li, S. Lin, J. H. Blanchet, and V. A. Nguyen. Tikhonov regularization is optimal transport robust under martingale constraints. In NeurIPS , 2022. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_ files/paper/2022/hash/708fdc7911f11585ee7161518e509ae6-Abstract-Conference. html . -
  129. [148][148] X. Li, K. Huang, W. Yang, S. Wang, and Z. Zhang. On the convergence of fedavg on non-iid data. In ICLR , 2019. -
  130. [149][149] Y. Li, X. Tian, M. Gong, Y. Liu, T. Liu, K. Zhang, and D. Tao. Deep domain generalization via conditional invariant adversarial networks. In ECCV , pages 624-639, 2018. -
  131. [150][150] Y. Li, Y. Yang, W. Zhou, and T. Hospedales. Feature-critic networks for heterogeneous domain generalization. In ICML , pages 3915-3924. PMLR, 2019. -
  132. [151][151] Y. Li, X. Wang, J. Xiao, and T.-S. Chua. Equivariant and invariant grounding for video question answering. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , MM '22, page 4714-4722, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450392037. doi: 10.1145/3503161.3548035. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3503161. 3548035 . - · DOI
  133. [152][152] S. Liang, Y. Li, and R. Srikant. Enhancing the reliability of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks. In ICLR , 2018. -
  134. [153][153] Y. Liao, R. Huang, J. Li, Z. Chen, and W. Li. Deep semisupervised domain generalization network for rotary machinery fault diagnosis under variable speed. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 69(10):8064-8075, 2020. -
  135. [154][154] Z. Lipton, Y.-X. Wang, and A. Smola. Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. In International conference on machine learning , pages 3122-3130. PMLR, 2018. -
  136. [155][155] E. Z. Liu, B. Haghgoo, A. S. Chen, A. Raghunathan, P. W. Koh, S. Sagawa, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 6781-6792. PMLR, 18-24 Jul 2021. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/liu21f.html . -
  137. [156][156] J. Liu, Z. Hu, P. Cui, B. Li, and Z. Shen. Kernelized heterogeneous risk minimization. NeurIPS , 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.12425 . - · arXiv
  138. [157][157] J. Liu, Z. Hu, P. Cui, B. Li, and Z. Shen. Heterogeneous risk minimization. In ICML , PMLR. PMLR, 2021. -
  139. [158][158] J. Liu, Z. Shen, P. Cui, L. Zhou, K. Kuang, B. Li, and Y. Lin. Stable adversarial learning under distributional shifts. In AAAI , volume 35, pages 8662-8670, 2021. -
  140. [159][159] J. Liu, Z. Shen, P. Cui, L. Zhou, K. Kuang, and B. Li. Distributionally robust learning with stable adversarial training. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , pages 1-12, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2022.3224056. - · DOI
  141. [160][160] J. Liu, J. Wu, B. Li, and P. Cui. Distributionally robust optimization with data geometry. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 35, pages 33689-33701. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2022/ file/da535999561b932f56efdd559498282e-Paper-Conference.pdf . -
  142. [161][161] J. Liu, J. Wu, J. Peng, Z. Shen, B. Li, and P. Cui. Distributionally invariant learning: Rationalization and practical algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02990 , 2022. - · arXiv
  143. [162][162] J. Liu, T. Wang, P. Cui, and H. Namkoong. On the need for a language describing distribution shifts: Illustrations on tabular datasets. CoRR , abs/2307.05284, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2307.05284. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.05284 . - · DOI
  144. [163][163] J. Liu, J. Wu, B. Li, and P. Cui. Predictive heterogeneity: Measures and applications. CoRR , abs/2304.00305, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.00305. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2304.00305 . - · DOI
  145. [164][164] J. Liu, J. Wu, R. Pi, R. Xu, X. Zhang, B. Li, and P. Cui. Measure the predictive heterogeneity. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id= g2oB\_k-18b . -
  146. [165][165] Q. Liu, Q. Dou, and P.-A. Heng. Shape-aware meta-learning for generalizing prostate mri segmentation to unseen domains. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 475-485. Springer, 2020. -
  147. [166][166] F. Locatello, S. Bauer, M. Lucic, G. Raetsch, S. Gelly, B. Schölkopf, and O. Bachem. Challenging common assumptions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations. In ICML , pages 4114-4124. PMLR, 2019. -
  148. [167][167] M. Long, J. Wang, G. Ding, S. J. Pan, and S. Y. Philip. Adaptation regularization: A general framework for transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 26 (5):1076-1089, 2013. -
  149. [168][168] M. Long, J. Wang, G. Ding, J. Sun, and P. S. Yu. Transfer feature learning with joint distribution adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2200-2207, 2013. -
  150. [169][169] M. Long, J. Wang, G. Ding, J. Sun, and P. S. Yu. Transfer joint matching for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1410-1417, 2014. -
  151. [170][170] K. Lotidis, N. Bambos, J. H. Blanchet, and J. Li. Wasserstein distributionally robust linearquadratic estimation under martingale constraints. In F. J. R. Ruiz, J. G. Dy, and J. van de Meent, editors, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 25-27 April 2023, Palau de Congressos, Valencia, Spain , volume 206 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 8629-8644. PMLR, 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v206/ lotidis23a.html . -
  152. [172][172] F. Lv, J. Liang, S. Li, B. Zang, C. H. Liu, Z. Wang, and D. Liu. Causality inspired representation learning for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8046-8056, June 2022. -
  153. [173][173] D. Mahajan, S. Tople, and A. Sharma. Domain generalization using causal matching. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors, ICML , volume 139 of PMLR , pages 7313-7324. PMLR, 18-24 Jul 2021. -
  154. [174][174] M. Mancini, S. R. Bulo, B. Caputo, and E. Ricci. Best sources forward: domain generalization through source-specific nets. In 2018 25th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) , pages 1353-1357. IEEE, 2018. -
  155. [175][175] D. Mandal, S. Deng, S. Jana, J. M. Wing, and D. Hsu. Ensuring fairness beyond the training data. In NeurIPS , 2020. -
  156. [176][176] B. Mazaheri, A. Mastakouri, D. Janzing, and M. Hardt. Causal information splitting: Engineering proxy features for robustness to distribution shifts. In R. J. Evans and I. Shpitser, editors, Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , volume 216 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 1401-1411. PMLR, 31 Jul-04 Aug 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v216/mazaheri23a.html . -
  157. [177][177] B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In AISTATS , pages 1273-1282. PMLR, 2017. -
  158. [178][178] N. Meinshausen. Causality from a distributional robustness point of view. In 2018 IEEE Data Science Workshop (DSW) , pages 6-10, 2018. doi: 10.1109/DSW.2018.8439889. - · DOI
  159. [179][179] J. P. Miller, R. Taori, A. Raghunathan, S. Sagawa, P. W. Koh, V. Shankar, P. Liang, Y. Carmon, and L. Schmidt. Accuracy on the line: on the strong correlation between out-of-distribution and in-distribution generalization. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 7721-7735. PMLR, 18-24 Jul 2021. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v139/miller21b.html . -
  160. [180][180] S. Motiian, M. Piccirilli, D. A. Adjeroh, and G. Doretto. Unified deep supervised domain adaptation and generalization. In ICCV , pages 5715-5725, 2017. -
  161. [182][182] A. Mukerjee, R. Biswas, K. Deb, and A. P. Mathur. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for the risk-return trade-off in bank loan management. International Transactions in operational research , 9(5):583-597, 2002. -
  162. [184][184] H. Nam and H.-E. Kim. Batch-instance normalization for adaptively style-invariant neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07925 , 2018. - · arXiv
  163. [185][185] H. Namkoong and J. C. Duchi. Stochastic gradient methods for distributionally robust optimization with f-divergences. NeurIPS , pages 2208-2216, 2016. -
  164. [186][186] J. Ni, J. Li, and J. McAuley. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In EMNLP-IJCNLP , pages 188-197, 2019. -
  165. [187][187] Z. Niu, J. Yuan, X. Ma, Y. Xu, J. Liu, Y.-W. Chen, R. Tong, and L. Lin. Knowledge distillation-based domain-invariant representation learning for domain generalization. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , pages 1-11, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TMM.2023.3263549. - · DOI
  166. [188][188] M. Noroozi and P. Favaro. Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles. In ECCV , pages 69-84. Springer, 2016. -
  167. [189][189] M. Oberst, N. Thams, J. Peters, and D. Sontag. Regularizing towards Causal Invariance: Linear Models with Proxies. In ICML , 2021. -
  168. [192][192] S. J. Pan, I. W. Tsang, J. T. Kwok, and Q. Yang. Domain adaptation via transfer component analysis. IEEE transactions on neural networks , 22(2):199-210, 2010. -
  169. [193][193] X. Pan, P. Luo, J. Shi, and X. Tang. Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net. In ECCV , pages 464-479, 2018. -
  170. [194][194] A. U. Parulekar, K. Shanmugam, and S. Shakkottai. PAC generalization via invariant representations. In A. Krause, E. Brunskill, K. Cho, B. Engelhardt, S. Sabato, and J. Scarlett, editors, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 27378-27400. PMLR, 23-29 Jul 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/parulekar23a.html . -
  171. [195][195] V. M. Patel, R. Gopalan, R. Li, and R. Chellappa. Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances. IEEE signal processing magazine , 32(3):53-69, 2015. -
  172. [196][196] J. Pearl. Causality . Cambridge university press, 2009. -
  173. [197][197] J. Pearl. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference . Elsevier, 2014. -
  174. [198][198] X. Peng and K. Saenko. Synthetic to real adaptation with generative correlation alignment networks. In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 1982-1991. IEEE, 2018. -
  175. [199][199] X. Peng, Q. Bai, X. Xia, Z. Huang, K. Saenko, and B. Wang. Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019 , pages 1406-1415. IEEE, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00149. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2019.00149 . - · DOI
  176. [200][200] J. Peters, P. Bühlmann, and N. Meinshausen. Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 78(5):947-1012, 2016. -
  177. [201][201] N. Pfister, P. Bühlmann, and J. Peters. Invariant Causal Prediction for Sequential Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 2018. -
  178. [202][202] J. Quiñonero-Candela, M. Sugiyama, N. D. Lawrence, and A. Schwaighofer. Dataset shift in machine learning . Mit Press, 2009. -
  179. [203][203] A. Rahimi, B. Recht, et al. Random features for large-scale kernel machines. In NeurIPS , volume 3, page 5. Citeseer, 2007. -
  180. [204][204] H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra. Distributionally robust optimization: A review. CoRR , abs/1908.05659, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05659 . - · arXiv
  181. [205][205] H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra. Distributionally robust optimization: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05659 , 2019. - · arXiv
  182. [207][207] V. Ramanishka, A. Das, J. Zhang, and K. Saenko. Top-down visual saliency guided by captions. In CVPR , pages 7206-7215, 2017. -
  183. [208][208] V. Raychev, P. Bielik, and M. Vechev. Probabilistic model for code with decision trees. ACM SIGPLAN Notices , 51(10):731-747, 2016. -
  184. [209][209] A. G. Reddy, V. N. Balasubramanian, et al. On causally disentangled representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05746 , 2021. - · arXiv
  185. [210][210] S. Reed, K. Sohn, Y. Zhang, and H. Lee. Learning to disentangle factors of variation with manifold interaction. In ICML , pages 1431-1439. PMLR, 2014. -
  186. [211][211] J. Ren, P. J. Liu, E. Fertig, J. Snoek, R. Poplin, M. A. DePristo, J. V. Dillon, and B. Lakshminarayanan. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. In NeurIPS , pages 14680-14691, 2019. -
  187. [212][212] M. Z. Y. D. H. Ren, B. L. M. C. J. Leskovec, W. Hu, and M. Fey. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00687 , 2020. - · arXiv
  188. [213][213] L. A. Rivera. Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American sociological review , 2012. -
  189. [214][214] Y. Roh, K. Lee, S. Whang, and C. Suh. Fr-train: A mutual information-based approach to fair and robust training. In ICML , pages 8147-8157. PMLR, 2020. -
  190. [215][215] M. Rojas-Carulla, B. Schölkopf, R. Turner, and J. Peters. Invariant models for causal transfer learning. JMLR , 19(1):1309-1342, 2018. -
  191. [216][216] R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10684-10695, 2022. -
  192. [217][217] E. Rosenfeld, P. Ravikumar, and A. Risteski. The risks of invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05761 , 2020. - · arXiv
  193. [218][218] D. Rothenhäusler, N. Meinshausen, P. Bühlmann, and J. Peters. Anchor regression: heterogeneous data meets causality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06229 , 2018. - · arXiv
  194. [219][219] J. Ryu, G. Kwon, M.-H. Yang, and J. Lim. Generalized convolutional forest networks for domain generalization and visual recognition. In ICLR , 2019. -
  195. [220][220] S. Saengkyongam, N. Thams, J. Peters, and N. Pfister. Invariant policy learning: A causal perspective. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(7):8606-8620, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3232363. - · DOI
  196. [221][221] S. Sagawa, P. W. Koh, T. B. Hashimoto, and P. Liang. Distributionally robust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08731 , 2019. - · arXiv
  197. [222][222] S. Sagawa, A. Raghunathan, P. W. Koh, and P. Liang. An investigation of why overparameterization exacerbates spurious correlations. In H. D. III and A. Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 8346-8356. PMLR, 13-18 Jul 2020. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/sagawa20a.html . -
  198. [223][223] B. Schölkopf, D. Janzing, J. Peters, E. Sgouritsa, K. Zhang, and J. M. Mooij. On causal and anticausal learning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2012, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, June 26 - July 1, 2012 . icml.cc / Omnipress, 2012. URL http://icml.cc/2012/papers/625.pdf . -
  199. [224][224] B. Schölkopf, F. Locatello, S. Bauer, N. R. Ke, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Goyal, and Y. Bengio. Toward causal representation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE , 109(5):612-634, 2021. -
  200. [225][225] B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, and T. Hofmann. Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. NeurIPS , 19:153-160, 2007. -

200 of 280 shown

Authors
Liu, J., Shen, Z., He, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, R., Yu, H., & Cui, P.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2108.13624
arXiv
2108.13624
OpenAlex
W3196850540
Cited by
253
References
233
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
out-of-distribution generalization, distribution shift, i.i.d. assumption, unsupervised feature learning

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