Deep Neural Networks Tend To Extrapolate Predictably
Katie Kang, Amrith Setlur, Claire Tomlin, Sergey Levine

TL;DR
Neural networks tend to predict a constant value close to the optimal constant solution when faced with out-of-distribution inputs, contradicting the common belief of unpredictable and overconfident extrapolation.
Contribution
This work reveals that neural networks extrapolate predictably towards a constant value near the OCS across various datasets, architectures, and loss functions, supported by empirical and theoretical analysis.
Findings
Neural networks' predictions stabilize to a constant value on OOD inputs.
The constant prediction often approximates the optimal constant solution minimizing training loss.
The observed behavior holds across multiple datasets, architectures, and loss functions.
Abstract
Conventional wisdom suggests that neural network predictions tend to be unpredictable and overconfident when faced with out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. Our work reassesses this assumption for neural networks with high-dimensional inputs. Rather than extrapolating in arbitrary ways, we observe that neural network predictions often tend towards a constant value as input data becomes increasingly OOD. Moreover, we find that this value often closely approximates the optimal constant solution (OCS), i.e., the prediction that minimizes the average loss over the training data without observing the input. We present results showing this phenomenon across 8 datasets with different distributional shifts (including CIFAR10-C and ImageNet-R, S), different loss functions (cross entropy, MSE, and Gaussian NLL), and different architectures (CNNs and transformers). Furthermore, we present an…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 poster
* Finding of the paper is interesting. * Paper writing is careful and clear. * The paper includes detailed evidence, both empirically and theoretically, for their claims.
There is no significant weakness.
+ [Originality] The paper novelly reassesses DNN’s OOD behavior both empirically and theoretically (OCS, OOD score, Sec 4.2), and reports interesting results (dispute of the common belief, OCS-based selective classification). + [Quality] The paper is of sufficient quality in my opinion, with proper empirical (Fig 3 & 4) and theoretical (Thm 4.1, Prop 4.2) validations of the main claims, and experimental evidence of the proposed algorithm’s effectiveness (Fig 6 & 7, although can be further improv
- [Evaluation] While it’s understandable that this work doesn’t focus on achieving SOTA results, it’s still highly desirable to see how the proposed algorithm compares to existing selective classification (or OOD detection) baselines, and/or how they can be combined to further boost performance (discussion would be fine too). - [Significance] While this paper is good in most aspects (as summarized in Strengths), its significance however is a bit insufficient in my opinion and can be substantiall
+ The paper is well-written, while understanding and improving the OOD of existing networks is important. + I personally like sec. A in the appendix, where the paper demonstrates some cases that have an unexpected performance with respect to their hypothesis. + The hypothesis seems new to me, while there are empirical results to support the hypothesis.
- Some of the training details are opaque in the main paper, which might lead into a simpler explanation over the observed empirical performance. For instance, could the learning algorithm or the data augmentation or the normalization impact this hypothesis? - I am skeptical about the hypothesis formed in the following sense: even if we assume a zero input, most modern networks rely on a normalization scheme, e.g. batch or layer normalization. Then, in a trained network, the “centering” provid
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
