PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

MAGDiff: Covariate Data Set Shift Detection via Activation Graphs of Deep Neural Networks

Charles Arnal, Felix Hensel, Mathieu Carrière, Théo Lacombe, Hiroaki Kurihara, Yuichi Ike, Frederic Chazal

self/semi-supervised learningshift detectiondimensionality reductionneural networksactivation graphs
33.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
33.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
33.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Despite their successful application to a variety of tasks, neural networks remain limited, like other machine learning methods, by their sensitivity to shifts in the data: their performance can be severely impacted by differences in distribution between the data on which they were trained and that on which they are deployed. In this article, we propose a new family of representations, called MAGDiff, that we extract from any given neural network classifier and that allows for efficient covariate data shift detection without the need to train a new model dedicated to this task. These representations are computed by comparing the activation graphs of the neural network for samples belonging to the training distribution and to the target distribution, and yield powerful data- and task-adapted statistics for the two-sample tests commonly used for data set shift detection. We demonstrate this empirically by measuring the statistical powers of two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests on several different data sets and shift types, and showing that our novel representations induce significant improvements over a state-of-the-art baseline relying on the network output.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 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 — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 49% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)