Kai Xu, Rongyu Chen, Gianni Franchi, Angela Yao
The capacity of a modern deep learning system to determine if a sample falls within its realm of knowledge is fundamental and important. In this paper, we offer insights and analyses of recent state-of-the-art out-of-distribution (OOD) detection methods - extremely simple activation shaping (ASH). We demonstrate that activation pruning has a detrimental effect on OOD detection, while activation scaling enhances it. Moreover, we propose SCALE, a simple yet effective post-hoc network enhancement method for OOD detection, which attains state-of-the-art OOD detection performance without compromising in-distribution (ID) accuracy. By integrating scaling concepts into the training process to capture a sample's ID characteristics, we propose Intermediate Tensor SHaping (ISH), a lightweight method for training time OOD detection enhancement. We achieve AUROC scores of +1.85\% for near-OOD and +0.74\% for far-OOD datasets on the OpenOOD v1.5 ImageNet-1K benchmark. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/kai422/SCALE.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | AUROC | 84.01 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | FPR@95 | 55.73 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | ID ACC | 76.74 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | AUROC | 81.36 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | FPR@95 | 59.76 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Near-OOD | ID ACC | 76.18 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs iNaturalist | AUROC | 98.17 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs iNaturalist | FPR95 | 9.5 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs iNaturalist | Latency, ms | 11.27 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Textures | AUROC | 97.37 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Textures | FPR95 | 12.93 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Textures | Latency, ms | 11.27 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Places | AUROC | 92.26 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Places | FPR95 | 34.51 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | AUROC | 96.79 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | FPR@95 | 15.62 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | ID ACC | 76.74 | ISH (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | AUROC | 96.53 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | FPR@95 | 16.53 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Far-OOD | ID ACC | 76.18 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs SUN | AUROC | 95.02 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs SUN | FPR95 | 23.27 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Curated OODs (avg.) | AUROC | 95.71 | SCALE (ResNet50) |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | ImageNet-1k vs Curated OODs (avg.) | FPR95 | 20.05 | SCALE (ResNet50) |