Paper: Perturb-and-Compare Approach for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples in Constrained Access Environments (ICLR-2024)

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
The core motivation of the paper is that perturbed OOD samples will reduce more confidence. But this motivation is not intuitive and cannot be verified. This motivation fails to show its competitiveness compared to maximum class probabilities or predicted entropy.

Author response:
Thank you for suggesting the direction we can improve our paper. The paper’s main motivation is that the contributing features that induce misclassification are less robust to perturbations. Misclassification here refers to misclassification as ID or OOD. We revised Figure 1 to include an actual example of this scenario [(Section 1, Figure 1a, page 2)]. To visually illustrate the locations of the model’s focus in the images, we utilized class activation maps. Figure 1a depicts that a picture of a train had a high confidence score because it resembled an ID class bus, despite it being an OOD sample. The features that led to the high confidence score for the bus are less robust to perturbations compared to the features in an actual picture of a bus under the same perturbation, as seen by the class activation maps and the model’s prediction scores.

We have also included a verification experiment in [(Section 1, Figure 1b, page 2), (Appendix E.8, Figure 6, pages 21-23)] to provide evidence for the intuition that contributing features in a misclassified sample is more sensitive to perturbations. In the experiment, we demonstrate that the locations in a sample on which the model has focused are more sensitive to perturbations when these features do not belong to the ground truth class. More specifically, for a given OOD sample with a high confidence score, we calculated the distance of the class activation maps of the predicted class before and after a perturbation. Compared to the class activation maps of the OOD sample’s actual ground truth class, these predicted class’s class activation maps tended to be more brittle to perturbations, despite having an initial high confidence prediction score for that class. This suggests that even though certain features in a misclassified OOD sample had a strong impact on the model’s high degree of confidence, these features have a tendency to be less robust to perturbations. 

We have conducted another experiment to further clarify this aspect and revised the manuscript to incorporate these findings in [(Section 4.5, Table 4, pages 8-9), (Appendix E.6, page 21)]. The experimental setup is based on adversarial attack scenarios. In an adversarial attack, attackers aim to fool the OOD detector, so that an ID sample is detected as OOD, and vice versa. This is commonly done by adding a small modification to a target sample that is indistinguishable to the human eye. It can be viewed that these modifications inject artificial features in the target sample so as to induce overconfident or underconfident outputs from the model. The experimental results demonstrate  MixDiff’s superiority on robustness to adversarial attacks. This indicates that the contributing features that induce ID/OOD misclassification are less robust to perturbations and that MixDiff can effectively exploit such brittleness. The AUROC scores are presented in the table below.

| Method | CIFAR10 |  |  |  | CIFAR100 |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Clean | In | Out | Both | Clean | In | Out | Both |
| Entropy | 89.88 | 47.42 | 13.77 | 2.678 | 79.87 | 36.86 | 14.38 | 2.21 |
| MixDiff+Entropy | 90.64 | 54.71 | 31.77 | 9.084 | 81.11 | 47.42 | 31.40 | 9.08 |
| MixDiff Only | 88.16 | 61.00 | 40.28 | 20.45 | 78.05 | 58.84 | 44.19 | 27.48 |

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
Compared with directly using OOD detection methods such as maximum class probability or predicted entropy, the complexity of the proposed method is very high, but according to the experimental results, the performance improvement is very limited.

Author response:
We are grateful for the reviewer for raising an important question regarding the computational aspect of our approach. We have included an analysis on computational cost in [(Appendix E.11, Figure 10, pages 24-25)]. For a given target sample, MixDiff requires processing additional $N \cdot R$  samples, where $N$ is the number of auxiliary samples, and $R$ is the number of Mixup rates. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix E.6. To demonstrate that MixDiff can still be beneficial even with a small computational budget, we performed additional analysis on the effect of $N$  and $R$  on the OOD detection performance. The results show that MixDiff’s performance is on par with the base score with one additional forward pass, $(N=1, R=1)$, and starts to outperform it with only two additional forward passes, $(N=1, R=2)$. The computational cost can be adjusted to fit a given budget while still enjoying the benefits of enhanced detection performance of the base score. 

We have also revised the manuscript to include analysis on the average time required to process the additional samples in [(Appendix E.12, Figure 11, pages 24-25)]. As discussed in Section 3, these samples can be processed in parallel, as the order in which they are processed does not matter. We have run additional analysis on the processing time. First, we put all of the target sample’s perturbed samples in a single batch and measure the average processing time per target sample and AUROC score with varying values of $R$. At a lower range of $R$, the detection performance increases rapidly while the processing time is somewhat stagnant, suggesting that the performance improvement from MixDiff can be gained without incurring a prohibitive processing time.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
When only the predicted labels of the model can be obtained, the performance of the model is very limited. And when the predicted probability of the model is obtained, it is no different from the previous OOD method without training, and I cannot see its significant advantage.

Author response:
We appreciate the detailed feedback regarding the performance aspect of our work. As we discuss in the Sections 1 and 2, MixDiff was proposed with the aim of enhancing output-based OOD detection functions without any access to the models’ internal states. This includes the ability to discriminate a pair of OOD and ID samples where the two samples have an almost identical model outputs, since in this case, output-based scores would struggle to distinguish the OOD sample. The environment where only the predicted labels are provided serves as an extreme case where all of the model’s confidence scores are hidden from the user. The experiments on this environment effectively show how MixDiff deals with the restriction that the model’s confidence scores for all of the samples are identical. And even in this extreme case, where none of the baseline methods were directly applicable, MixDiff was able to gather additional information by perturbing the target sample and comparing the perturbed target sample’s confidence scores with perturbed oracle samples, while only accessing the input level samples. This was evidenced by MixDiff gaining more than 10 AUROC score compared to random guessing. 

As for the environment where only the prediction probabilities are accessible, MixDiff+MSP score improves the MSP score by 1.4 AUROC on average, while MixDiff+Entropy score improves the entropy score by 0.8 AUROC on average [(Section 4, Table 3, page 8)]. In addition to that, we have added another baseline, MCM [1], to better demonstrate the effectiveness of MixDiff’s OOD detection performance [(Section 4, Table 1, page 7)]. While MCM exhibits a strong performance, outperforming all of the other four output-based baselines, this method requires an access to the logit space, which may not be available from a black-box model. However, the entropy score equipped with MixDiff outperforms MCM on 4 out of 5 datasets as well as on average AUROC over the five datasets, while solely relying on the model’s prediction probabilities. This is in contrast to the case where a linear combination of MSP and the entropy scores not yielding any improvement on the entropy score [(Section 4, Table 3, page 8)]. These results suggest that MixDiff scores contain additional information which has been effectively gained from MixDiff’s perturb-and-compare approach. We present each method's the average AUROC scores in the table below. We have revised Section 4 of the manuscript to reflect the additional experiments.

| Method | CIFAR10 | CIFAR100 | CIFAR+10 | CIFAR+50 | TinyImageNet | Average |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MCM (Ming et al., 2022) | 90.6±2.9 | 80.3±2.1 | 96.9±0.8 | 97.0 | 83.1±2.2 | 89.6 |
| MixDiff+MCM | 91.4±1.8 | 81.4±2.6 | 97.5±0.9 | 97.7 | 83.9±2.2 | 90.4 |
| Entropy | 89.9±2.6 | 79.9±2.5 | 96.8±0.8 | 96.8 | 82.2±2.3 | 89.1 |
| MixDiff+Entropy (Pred. prob.) | 91.1±1.6 | 80.9±2.6 |  97.1±0.8 | 97.3 | 82.9±2.3 | 89.9 |
| DML (Zhang & Xiang, 2023) | 87.8±3.0 | 80.0±3.1 | 96.1±0.8 | 96.0 | 84.0±1.2 | 88.8 |
| ASH (Djurisic et al., 2023) | 85.2±3.8 | 75.4±4.4 | 92.5±0.9 | 92.4 | 77.2±3.1 | 84.5 |

We perform an additional analysis [(Appendix E.9, Figure 8, pages 23-24)] to qualitatively showcase the contribution of MixDiff score to other base scores. To that end, we divide the MSP score’s values into certain number of consecutive intervals, so that the MSP values of a given interval would be similar to each other. For each interval, we calculate the mean of MSP scores of ID and OOD samples, respectively. The mean of MSP scores for ID and OOD samples are expected to be similar in value as these samples belong to the same interval. Next, for each interval of MSP, we calculate the mean of MixDiff scores of ID and OOD samples belonging to that interval. Finally, when we plot the difference of the mean of ID and mean of OOD samples for each interval, the MixDiff’s difference is significantly higher. This qualitatively demonstrates that even when two MSP scores are almost identical, MixDiff scores can provide a discriminative edge over the MSP score, while only modifying the input level sample.

[1] Delving into out-of-distribution detection with vision-language representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:35087–35102, 2022.

Reviewer comment (Novelty):
The motivation discussed in the introduction is somewhat opposite to the existing empirical findings on OOD detection with perturbed data. See [1], which suggests that the perturbed OOD data will also be predicted with overconfident probabilities for neural networks.

Author response:
Thank you for pointing out these fine points. In adversarial attack scenarios, the attacker tries to find a perturbation for a given OOD sample that induces confident prediction probability from the model. This is commonly achieved by following the model’s gradient that guides the perturbation to the direction that increases the model’s certainty regarding the sample. This can be seen as inserting an artificial feature that is optimized for this specific sample. You are correct in noting that a perturbation can increase the model’s confidence for a given target sample.

However, in our case, the purpose of applying perturbations is not necessarily to increase or decrease the target sample’s confidence. It is to see how robust the features contained in the target sample are. This is achieved by applying undirected perturbations to the target sample and comparing how the same perturbations affect an actual ID sample that is deemed to possess the same features as determined by the predicted class label of the target sample. Our theoretical analysis suggests that for a given OOD sample with a high confidence score, it is not unreasonable to find an auxiliary sample that will reduce the confidence score of the target compared to an oracle when both are mixed with the same auxiliary sample.  

To reiterate, the perturbations in adversarial attack scenarios can be regarded as injecting artificial features to a target image, while our perturbations can be viewed as more of an undirected noise designed to test whether a certain feature is robust enough to be considered as real features. Inspired by this idea, we have conducted an additional experiment [(Section 4.5, Table 4, pages 8-9), (Appendix E.6, page 21)] designed to test MixDiff’s robustness to these artificial features and the experimental results indicate that MixDiff is significantly more effective at discerning these artificial features than a baseline score. We present the AUROC scores in the table below.

| Method | CIFAR10 |  |  |  | CIFAR100 |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Clean | In | Out | Both | Clean | In | Out | Both |
| Entropy | 89.88 | 47.42 | 13.77 | 2.678 | 79.87 | 36.86 | 14.38 | 2.21 |
| MixDiff+Entropy | 90.64 | 54.71 | 31.77 | 9.084 | 81.11 | 47.42 | 31.40 | 9.08 |
| MixDiff Only | 88.16 | 61.00 | 40.28 | 20.45 | 78.05 | 58.84 | 44.19 | 27.48 |

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
The compared baselines are not state-of-the-art. The authors are suggested to compare with more recent strong methods, such as those listed in [3,4].

Author response:
We have run additional experiments Section 4, Table 1, page 8)] with two recently proposed methods that on model’s inner activations, namely  DML [1] and ASH [2] and added the results in Table 3. For fair comparison with zero-shot OOD detection methods, we applied these methods to zero-shot CLIP classifier. However, these methods did not outperform the baseline scores. We suspect this is because they were validated with finetuned models such as ResNet50 finetuned on the ID dataset, whereas our experimental setup focuses on zero-shot OOD detection. This result is in line with previous findings [3] where a similar method, ReAct [4], did not outperform the Energy score in zero-shot OOD detection task.

This has prompted us to run another experiment [(Section 4, Table 1, page 7)] to evaluate MCM [5]. MCM has shown strong performance on zero-shot OOD detection task. However, it requires an access to the logit space, which may not be accessible in a black-box API. This method outperforms the baseline scores that are based on the model’s prediction probabilities, namely, Entropy and MSP, as well as two other logit-based OOD scores (MLS, Energy). However, MixDiff equipped with entropy score outperforms MCM, on 4 out of 5 datasets as well as on average over the 5 datasets, while solely relying on model’s prediction probabilities. The results suggest that MixDiff’s perturb-and-compare approach is effective at gathering more discriminative information that are not available in prediction probabilities alone. Moreover, MixDiff further improves MCM’s detection performance when applied to it.

Reviewer comment (Theory):
The authors are suggested to justify the assumptions used in the theory in a formal way.

Author response:
First of all, we appreciate your detailed review and valuable feedback. In light of your review concerning the theorem, we acknowledge the need to reassess the underlying assumptions to ensure the validity of our theorem. Thanks to your feedback, revisiting the proof of our theorem allowed us to refine our approach to the proof of Theorem 1. This process enabled us to demonstrate that our proposed theorem can hold under mode general and reasonable conditions, leading to its significant advancement.

In our original theorem, we’ve revisited the following assumptions
$0 < f(x_m) < f(x_t), f(x_t)=f(x_m)+c$, where $c>0.5(1-\lambda)\sigma'(f(x_m))$. 

$c$ represents the extent to which the confidence of a target sample exceeds that of an arbitrary oracle sample, particularly when the target sample is a ‘hard OOD sample’. This refers to samples that would be mistakenly classified as in-distribution by base OOD score functions.

In the revised version of our theorem [(Section 3.1, Theorem 1, pages 5-6), (Appendix C, Theorem 1, pages 17-18)], we have theoretically demonstrated that our method remains valid even under more generalized conditions.

We continue to maintain the assumption that $f(x_t)$ is a hard OOD target sample. However, we have revised the condition for $c$ to simply require that it be greater than 0. Additionally assuming the confidence of any arbitrary oracle sample $f(x_m)$ is sufficiently large, such that $0<\frac{\sigma''(f_t)}{\sigma''(f_m)}<1$, we have verified the existence of an auxiliary sample $x_i$ such that

$h(f(x_t))-h(f(x_m))+\sum_{l=1}^3(\omega_l(x_t,x_i)-\omega_l(x_m,x_i))>0$.

Please refer to Appendix C for the revised proof of Theorem 1.

Reviewer comment (Evaluation):
What is the computation cost of the proposed methods? It seems like the current method will require multiple forward/backward steps of the neural net during inference.

Author response:
Thank you for raising a question regarding this important aspect. As we discuss in Appendix G, MixDiff’s effectiveness at gaining more discriminative information from a black-box model comes with a certain computational overhead, as we probe the model by passing multiple perturbed samples to the black-box model. For a given target sample, MixDiff requires processing additional $N \cdot R$  samples, where $N$ is the number of auxiliary samples, and $R$ is the number of Mixup rates. A more detailed description can be found in Appendix E.5. We note that no backward step is performed as MixDiff does not require any gradient information, which makes it applicable to black-box environments.

To demonstrate that MixDiff can still be beneficial even with a small computational budget, we performed an additional analysis [(Appendix E.11, Figure 10, pages 24-25)] on the effect of $N$  and $R$  on the OOD detection performance. The results show that MixDiff’s performance is on par with the base score with one additional forward pass, $(N=1, R=1)$, and starts to outperform it with only two additional forward passes, $(N=1, R=2)$. The computational cost can be adjusted to fit a given budget while still enjoying the benefits of enhanced detection performance of a base score. We have added the results of the analysis in Appendix E.11.

Another important aspect is the time required to process the additional samples. We added a plot detailing the performance and processing time trade-off in [(Appendix E.12, Figure 11, pages 24-25)]. As discussed in Section 3, MixDiff’s perturbed samples can be processed in parallel, as the order in which they are processed does not matter. We have run additional analysis on the processing time. First, we put all of the target sample’s perturbed samples in a single batch and measure the average processing time per target sample and AUROC score with varying values of $R$. At a lower range of $R$, the detection performance increases rapidly while the processing time is somewhat stagnant, suggesting that the performance improvement from MixDiff can be gained without incurring a prohibitive processing time.

Reviewer comment (Novelty):
The observation that OOD samples are less robust to perturbations (e.g., data augmentation methods such as MixUp) seems to align with the observation in the context of data poisoning, where poisoned data (can be also regarded as OOD samples) could be screened by strong augmentation methods. Although this is not strongly correlated, I encourage the authors to add a bit of discussion regarding this.

Author response:
We appreciate the suggestion and have revised Section 2 to include such connections to data poisoning attack [(Section 2, page 3)]. Prior works [1, 2] suggest that data augmentation with Mixup reduces the attack efficacy by allowing the victim model to observe some parts of the poisoned samples’ adversarial features in none-poisoned samples during training, which is made possible by the interpolation of samples in the case of Mixup, or insertion of certain parts of an image in the case of CutMix. This may be viewed in another perspective, where poisoned samples’ adversarial features are perturbed by the Mixup operation. Attackers want the victim model to associate these artificial distractors with a certain outcome, i.e., being uncertain even when a sample exhibits the ground truth class characteristics, so that the class boundaries would be blurry. The two approaches seem to share certain characteristics, in the sense that the Mixup operation was used to reduce the adverse effect of distractors.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
The existing experiments are not comprehensive enough. I would recommend the authors to include an additional experiment to address the following concern: while the experiments and theory conducted by the authors do support the effectiveness of their method, their motivation is based on the intuition that contributing features in misclassified samples are more sensitive to perturbations. However, this intuition lacks proper support and validation. Hence, it would be beneficial for the authors to incorporate relevant verification experiments to provide further evidence and clarify this aspect.

Author response:
Thank you for pointing out this important aspect. We have included a verification experiment in [(Section 1, Figure 1b, page 2), (Appendix E.8, Figure 6, pages 21-23)] to provide evidence for the intuition that contributing features in a misclassified sample are more sensitive to perturbations. In the experiment, we demonstrate that the locations in a sample on which the model has focused are more sensitive to perturbations when these features do not belong to the ground truth class. More specifically, for a given OOD sample with a high confidence score, we calculated the distance of the class activation maps of the predicted class before and after a perturbation. Compared to the class activation maps of the OOD sample’s actual ground truth class, these predicted class’s class activation maps tended to be more brittle to perturbations, despite having an initial high confidence prediction score for that class. This suggests that even though certain features in a misclassified OOD sample had strong impact on the model’s high degree of confidence, these features have tendency to be less robust to perturbations.

We also have conducted another additional experiment that further clarifies this aspect [(Section 4.5, Table 4, pages 8-9), (Appendix E.6, page 21)]. The experimental setup is based on adversarial attack scenarios. In an adversarial attack on an OOD detector, attackers aim to fool the OOD detector, so that an ID sample is detected as OOD, and vice versa. This is commonly done by adding a small modification to a target sample that is indistinguishable to human eye. It can be viewed that these modifications inject certain artificial features in the target sample so as to induce overconfident or underconfident outputs from the model. The experimental results demonstrate  MixDiff’s superiority on robustness to adversarial attacks. This indicates that the contributing features that induce ID/OOD misclassification are less robust to perturbations and that MixDiff can effectively exploit such brittleness. We present the results below.

| Method | CIFAR10 |  |  |  | CIFAR100 |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Clean | In | Out | Both | Clean | In | Out | Both |
| Entropy | 89.88 | 47.42 | 13.77 | 2.678 | 79.87 | 36.86 | 14.38 | 2.21 |
| MixDiff+Entropy | 90.64 | 54.71 | 31.77 | 9.084 | 81.11 | 47.42 | 31.40 | 9.08 |
| MixDiff Only | 88.16 | 61.00 | 40.28 | 20.45 | 78.05 | 58.84 | 44.19 | 27.48 |

We also have revised Figure 1 in [(Section 1, Figure 1a, page 2)] to better illustrate our motivation by displaying the change in the class activation maps of a high-confidence OOD sample while it undergoes a perturbation, and its corresponding oracle (an ID sample with the same predicted class) sample’s class activation maps under the same perturbation.

Reviewer comment (Presentation):
The description of the algorithm section could be improved to enhance its intuitiveness. It would be helpful to include a schematic diagram illustrating the algorithm, providing readers with a clearer understanding of its workflow.

Author response:
Thank you for your interest in our research and for your detailed review. We are particularly grateful for your feedback on enhancing the explanation of our algorithm, which is a crucial component of understanding the structure of our methodology.

We have revised Figure 2 in the manuscript to provide a more intuitive and integrated understanding of the flow of the algorithm [(Section 3, Figure 2, page 4)]. Whereas the original Figure 2 was intended to provide an intuitive view of the overall flow of how the MixDiff score is computed, this revised Figure 2 reflects the order in which the Algorithm 1 is followed, showing how MixDiff works step-by-step. By presenting a simple example in detailed steps, Figure 2 has become more intuitive and easier to understand the proposed method.

Reviewer comment (Experiments):
In the related work section, the authors mention that some methods are not suitable for black-box APIs, where only access to inputs and outputs is available. An example of such a method mentioned in the paper is: "Decoupling maxlogit for out-of-distribution detection." In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 3388–3397, June 2023. However, including a comparison with such methods would help readers understand the extent to which the proposed approach differs from ideal scenarios with more information, under the constraints of rigorous black-box conditions. This would provide further insights into the progress of OOD detection under black-box settings.

Author response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. This would indeed help the readers to assess the state of OOD detection task in black-box environments. To that end, we have run additional experiments  [(Section 4, Table 1, page 8)] with two such methods which rely on model’s inner activations, namely  DML [1] and ASH [2] and added the results in Table 3. For fair comparison with zero-shot OOD detection methods, we applied these methods to zero-shot CLIP classifier. However, these methods did not outperform the baseline scores. We suspect this is because they were validated with finetuned models such as ResNet50 finetuned on the ID dataset, whereas our experimental setup focuses on zero-shot OOD detection. This result is in line with previous findings [3] where a similar method, ReAct [4], did not outperform the Energy score in zero-shot OOD detection task.

This has prompted us to run another experiment [(Section 4, Table 1, page 7)] to evaluate MCM [5]. MCM has shown strong performance on zero-shot OOD detection task. However, it requires an access to the logit space, which may not be accessible in a black-box API. This method outperforms the baseline scores that are based on the model’s prediction probabilities, namely, Entropy and MSP, as well as two other logit-based OOD scores (MLS, Energy). However, MixDiff equipped with entropy score outperforms MCM, on 4 out of 5 datasets as well as on average over the 5 datasets, while solely relying on model’s prediction probabilities. The results suggest that MixDiff’s perturb-and-compare approach is effective at gathering more discriminative information that are not available in prediction probabilities alone. Moreover, MixDiff further improves MCM’s detection performance when applied to it. We present the average AUROC scores of each method in the table below.

| Method | CIFAR10 | CIFAR100 | CIFAR+10 | CIFAR+50 | TinyImageNet | Average |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MCM (Ming et al., 2022) | 90.6±2.9 | 80.3±2.1 | 96.9±0.8 | 97.0 | 83.1±2.2 | 89.6 |
| MixDiff+MCM | 91.4±1.8 | 81.4±2.6 | 97.5±0.9 | 97.7 | 83.9±2.2 | 90.4 |
| Entropy | 89.9±2.6 | 79.9±2.5 | 96.8±0.8 | 96.8 | 82.2±2.3 | 89.1 |
| MixDiff+Entropy (Pred. prob.) | 91.1±1.6 | 80.9±2.6 |  97.1±0.8 | 97.3 | 82.9±2.3 | 89.9 |
| DML (Zhang & Xiang, 2023) | 87.8±3.0 | 80.0±3.1 | 96.1±0.8 | 96.0 | 84.0±1.2 | 88.8 |
| ASH (Djurisic et al., 2023) | 85.2±3.8 | 75.4±4.4 | 92.5±0.9 | 92.4 | 77.2±3.1 | 84.5 |

[1] Decoupling maxlogit for out-of-distribution detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 3388–3397, June 2023.

[2] Extremely simple activation shaping for out-of-distribution detection. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.

[3] Clipn for zero-shot ood detection: Teaching clip to say no. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1802–1812, 2023.

[4] React: Out-of-distribution detection with rectified activations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021.

[5] Delving into out-of-distribution detection with vision-language representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:35087–35102, 2022.