Papers › Reproducibility study on how to find Spurious Correlations, Shortcut Learning, Clever...
Reproducibility study on how to find Spurious Correlations, Shortcut Learning, Clever Hans or Group-Distributional non-robustness and how to fix them
Ole Delzer, Sidney Bender
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are increasingly utilized in high-stakes domains like medical diagnostics and autonomous driving where model reliability is critical. However, the research landscape for ensuring this reliability is terminologically fractured across communities that pursue the same goal of ensuring models rely on causally relevant features rather than confounding signals. While frameworks such as distributionally robust optimization (DRO), invariant risk minimization (IRM), shortcut learning, simplicity bias, and the Clever Hans effect all address model failure due to spurious correlations, researchers typically only reference work within their own domains. This reproducibility study unifies these perspectives through a comparative analysis of correction methods under challenging constraints like limited data availability and severe subgroup imbalance. We evaluate recently proposed correction methods based on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques alongside popular non-XAI baselines using both synthetic and real-world datasets. Findings show that XAI-based methods generally outperform non-XAI approaches, with Counterfactual Knowledge Distillation (CFKD) proving most consistently effective at improving generalization. Our experiments also reveal that the practical application of many methods is hindered by a dependency on group labels, as manual annotation is often infeasible and automated tools like Spectral Relevance Analysis (SpRAy) struggle with complex features and severe imbalance. Furthermore, the scarcity of minority group samples in validation sets renders model selection and hyperparameter tuning unreliable, posing a significant obstacle to the deployment of robust and trustworthy models in safety-critical areas.
In Syntology 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="2604.04518")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 23 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 22 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 23 samples from 2 repositories, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
23 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 22 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 23 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 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “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.
cac113ca87b9d9f3 · report
621de5dd9c62c06d · report
fe49a67591e2b166 · report
c4c16e96906f44c1 · report
e2f8b1a98dec9723 · report
8ddc981d69ea3f87 · report
381380e09fd105f8 · report
a34ee1b3b27a6aab · report
cb34892eb3e6a222 · report
0d137e4287625df2 · report
ced481b63e75a562 · report
e0a13eb48a172c2d · report
2c22c149a0985110 · report
06ad82cc77eece0b · report
997028fdd788415d · report
740913d7e078246b · report
08582c38903e9dc0 · report
0d63c1c1b235a76e · report
10e220982fed5f01 · report
26e3775d1e8a65d0 · report
8a66892616008c7f · report
3c241ecfe3749a6d · report
7ef9ae2541d2ae3e · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.04518, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
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