2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2104.09937
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gradient Matching for Domain Generalization

Abstract: Machine learning systems typically assume that the distributions of training and test sets match closely. However, a critical requirement of such systems in the real world is their ability to generalize to unseen domains. Here, we propose an inter-domain gradient matching objective that targets domain generalization by maximizing the inner product between gradients from different domains. Since direct optimization of the gradient inner product can be computationally prohibitive -requires computation of second-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
35
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By further modifying the learning rate from 1e-4 to 3e-4 and increasing the checkpoint frequency to be every 200 steps instead of 1000, we finally obtain a worst region accuracy of 34.8% (rows "+ higher lr"). We note that these final OOD test accuracies we obtain are competitive compared to the number reported 2 by Shi et al [9], 34.6%, achieved using a technique specifically designed for the domain shift problem (a method called Fish; last row in Table 2). Such "trivial" improvements over the baseline call for further tuning of the baseline settings before developing and evaluating new models on this dataset.…”
Section: Core Findingsmentioning
confidence: 45%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…By further modifying the learning rate from 1e-4 to 3e-4 and increasing the checkpoint frequency to be every 200 steps instead of 1000, we finally obtain a worst region accuracy of 34.8% (rows "+ higher lr"). We note that these final OOD test accuracies we obtain are competitive compared to the number reported 2 by Shi et al [9], 34.6%, achieved using a technique specifically designed for the domain shift problem (a method called Fish; last row in Table 2). Such "trivial" improvements over the baseline call for further tuning of the baseline settings before developing and evaluating new models on this dataset.…”
Section: Core Findingsmentioning
confidence: 45%
“…Nowadays, few researchers are surprised by NNs performing very well on some in-domain data distribution, and there has been increasing interest in developing models that are robust to domain shifts [8,9,10,11]. Here we focus on the recently proposed benchmark for evaluating domain robust systems, WILDS [11], and we share our empirical experience with two datasets of WILDS, iWildCam and FMoW, as well as their baseline models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…( 4), one has to compute second order derivatives such as ∇ θ ∇ x log p Z|X (z|x), which is computationally prohibitive for tasks with large dimensional inputs such as stereo matching, semantic segmentation, etc. [38]. To overcome this issue, we propose ITSA, a simple yet computationally feasible approach to promote the learning of shortcut-invariant features.…”
Section: Robust Information Bottleneck and Fisher Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Domain alignment methods attempt to learn a domain-invariant representation of the data from the source domains by regularizing the learning objective. Variants of such a regularization include the minimization across the source domains of the maximum mean discrepancy criteria (MMD) [21,35], the minimization of a distance metric between the domain-specific means [71] or covariance matrices [69], the minimization of a contrastive loss [50,83,44,29], or the maximization of loss gradient alignment [65,63]. Other works use adversarial training with a domain discriminator model [18,37] for the same purpose.…”
Section: Domain Generalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%