Papers › Finding Competence Regions in Domain Generalization

Finding Competence Regions in Domain Generalization

17 Mar 2023arXiv:2303.09989archive 2025-07-28

Jens Müller, Stefan T. Radev, Robert Schmier, Felix Draxler, Carsten Rother, Ullrich Köthe

We investigate a "learning to reject" framework to address the problem of silent failures in Domain Generalization (DG), where the test distribution differs from the training distribution. Assuming a mild distribution shift, we wish to accept out-of-distribution (OOD) data from a new domain whenever a model's estimated competence foresees trustworthy responses, instead of rejecting OOD data outright. Trustworthiness is then predicted via a proxy incompetence score that is tightly linked to the performance of a classifier. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation of existing proxy scores as incompetence scores for classification and highlight the resulting trade-offs between rejection rate and accuracy gain. For comparability with prior work, we focus on standard DG benchmarks and consider the effect of measuring incompetence via different learned representations in a closed versus an open world setting. Our results suggest that increasing incompetence scores are indeed predictive of reduced accuracy, leading to significant improvements of the average accuracy below a suitable incompetence threshold. However, the scores are not yet good enough to allow for a favorable accuracy/rejection trade-off in all tested domains. Surprisingly, our results also indicate that classifiers optimized for DG robustness do not outperform a naive Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) baseline in the competence region, that is, where test samples elicit low incompetence scores.

Code

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

8 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 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 8 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 xarwinm/competence_estimation. “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.

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