PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Learning to ignore: Single Source Domain Generalization via Oracle Regularization

Dong Kyu Cho, Sanghack Lee

transfer & meta learningDomain GeneralizationOut-of-distribution robustnessCausal Representation Learning
32.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
33.20100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
37.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We reveal an overlooked problem of augmentation-based generalization methods, and devise an regularization method to mitigate the uncertainty of data augmentation.

Abstract

Machine learning frequently suffers from the discrepancy in data distribution, commonly known as domain shift. Single-source Domain Generalization (sDG) is a task designed to simulate domain shift artificially, in order to train a model that can generalize well to multiple unseen target domains from a single source domain. A popular approach is to learn robustness via the alignment of augmented samples. However, prior works frequently overlooked what is learned from such alignment. In this paper, we study the effectiveness of augmentation-based sDG methods by analyzing the data generating process. We highlight issues in using augmentation for OOD generalization, namely, the distinction between domain invariance and augmentation invariance. To alleviate these issues, we introduce a novel regularization method that leverages pretrained models to guide the learning process via a feature-level regularization of mutual information, which we name PROF (Progressive mutual information Regularization for Online distillation of Frozen oracles). PROF can be applied to conventional augmentation-based methods to moderate the stochasticity of models repeatedly trained on augmented data. We show that PROF stabilizes the learning process for sDG.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 43% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)