Bayesian Domain Invariant Learning via Posterior Generalization of Parameter Distributions
Shiyu Shen, Xia Xu, Tianyang Shi, Tao Li, Zhenwei Shi, Bin Pan
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — This paper propose a new Bayesian method to learn the domain invariant posterior distribution of network parameters
Abstract
Domain invariant learning aims to learn models that extract invariant features over various training domains, resulting in better generalization to unseen target domains. Recently, Bayesian Neural Networks have achieved promising results in domain invariant learning, but most works concentrate on aligning features distributions rather than parameter distributions. Inspired by the principle of Bayesian Neural Network, we attempt to directly learn the domain invariant posterior distribution of network parameters. We first propose a theorem to show that the invariant posterior of parameters can be implicitly inferred by aggregating posteriors on different training domains. Our assumption is more relaxed and allows us to extract more domain invariant information. We also propose a simple yet effective method, named PosTerior Generalization (PTG), that can be used to estimate the invariant parameter distribution. PTG fully exploits variational inference to approximate parameter distributions, including the invariant posterior and the posteriors on training domains. Furthermore, we develop a lite version of PTG for widespread applications. PTG shows competitive performance on various domain generalization benchmarks on DomainBed. Additionally, PTG can use any existing domain generalization methods as its prior, and combined with previous state-of-the-art method the performance can be further improved. Code will be made public.
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 48% of matchups.
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)