# Probabilistic Trust Intervals for Out of Distribution Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01336 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01336/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.1556/) (2014)
- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Densely Connected Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.06993/) (2016)
- [Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.07747/) (2017)
- [Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1406.1078/) (2014)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.12261/) (2019)
- [A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02136/) (2016)
- [Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.03530/) (2016)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03888/) (2018)
- [Enhancing The Reliability of Out-of-distribution Image Detection in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.02690/) (2017)
- [Deep Anomaly Detection with Outlier Exposure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.04606/) (2018)
- [Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.1897/) (2014)
- [Evidential Deep Learning to Quantify Classification Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.01768/) (2018)
- [Likelihood Ratios for Out-of-Distribution Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02845/) (2019)
- [Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.02757/) (2019)
- [Training Confidence-calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.09325/) (2017)
- [BatchEnsemble: An Alternative Approach to Efficient Ensemble and Lifelong Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.06715/) (2020)
- [On Mixup Training: Improved Calibration and Predictive Uncertainty for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11001/) (2019)
- [Learning compositional functions via multiplicative weight updates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14560/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The ability of a deep learning network to distinguish between in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs is crucial for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of AI systems. Existing OOD detection methods often involve complex architectural innovations, such as ensemble models, which, while enhancing detection accuracy, significantly increase model complexity and training time. Other methods utilize surrogate samples to simulate OOD inputs, but these may not generalize well across different types of OOD data. In this paper, we propose a straightforward yet novel technique to enhance OOD detection in pre-trained networks without altering its original parameters. Our approach defines probabilistic trust intervals for each network weight, determined using in-distribution data. During inference, additional weight values are sampled, and the resulting disagreements among outputs are utilized for OOD detection. We propose a metric to quantify this disagreement and validate its effectiveness with empirical evidence. Our method significantly outperforms various baseline methods across multiple OOD datasets without requiring actual or surrogate OOD samples. We evaluate our approach on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10-C (a corruption-augmented version of CIFAR-10), across various neural network architectures (e.g., VGG-16, ResNet-20, DenseNet-100). On the MNIST-FashionMNIST setup, our method achieves a False Positive Rate (FPR) of 12.46% at 95% True Positive Rate (TPR), compared to 27.09% achieved by the best baseline. On adversarial and corrupted datasets such as CIFAR-10-C, our proposed method easily differentiate between clean and noisy inputs. These results demonstrate the robustness of our approach in identifying corrupted and adversarial inputs, all without requiring OOD samples during training.