Papers › Advancing Open-Set Domain Generalization Using Evidential Bi-Level Hardest Domain Scheduler
Advancing Open-Set Domain Generalization Using Evidential Bi-Level Hardest Domain Scheduler
Kunyu Peng, Di Wen, Kailun Yang, Ao Luo, Yufan Chen, Jia Fu, M. Saquib Sarfraz, Alina Roitberg, Rainer Stiefelhagen
In Open-Set Domain Generalization (OSDG), the model is exposed to both new variations of data appearance (domains) and open-set conditions, where both known and novel categories are present at test time. The challenges of this task arise from the dual need to generalize across diverse domains and accurately quantify category novelty, which is critical for applications in dynamic environments. Recently, meta-learning techniques have demonstrated superior results in OSDG, effectively orchestrating the meta-train and -test tasks by employing varied random categories and predefined domain partition strategies. These approaches prioritize a well-designed training schedule over traditional methods that focus primarily on data augmentation and the enhancement of discriminative feature learning. The prevailing meta-learning models in OSDG typically utilize a predefined sequential domain scheduler to structure data partitions. However, a crucial aspect that remains inadequately explored is the influence brought by strategies of domain schedulers during training. In this paper, we observe that an adaptive domain scheduler benefits more in OSDG compared with prefixed sequential and random domain schedulers. We propose the Evidential Bi-Level Hardest Domain Scheduler (EBiL-HaDS) to achieve an adaptive domain scheduler. This method strategically sequences domains by assessing their reliabilities in utilizing a follower network, trained with confidence scores learned in an evidential manner, regularized by max rebiasing discrepancy, and optimized in a bi-level manner. The results show that our method substantially improves OSDG performance and achieves more discriminative embeddings for both the seen and unseen categories. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/KPeng9510/EBiL-HaDS.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2409.17555")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 9 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 4 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 5 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 9 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
9 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 9 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from KPeng9510/EBiL-HaDS. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
a3baa06771bccf04 · report
c8b5e1c40dd2d7fb · report
73eb8148c28d4b71 · report
508c76ea74aa577e · report
f19d8d6fdcfd521d · report
7103e551a414fc17 · report
c90e999663845bea · report
e4bbadbd73225a59 · report
6efb0a5454b964ce · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections