Quantifying Data Similarity Using Cross Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Measuring dataset similarity is fundamental in machine learning, particularly for transfer learning and domain adaptation. In the context of supervised learning, most existing approaches quantify similarity of two data sets based on their input feature distributions, neglecting label information and feature-response alignment. To address this, we propose the Cross-Learning Score (CLS), which measures dataset similarity through bidirectional generalization performance of decision rules. We establish its theoretical foundation by linking CLS to cosine similarity between decision boundaries under canonical linear models, providing a geometric interpretation. A robust ensemble-based estimator is developed that is easy to implement and bypasses high-dimensional density estimation entirely. For transfer learning applications, we introduce a "transferable zones" framework that categorizes source datasets into positive, ambiguous, and negative transfer regions. To accommodate deep learning, we extend CLS to encoder-head architectures, aligning with modern representation-based pipelines. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate the effectiveness of CLS for similarity measurement and transfer assessment.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2025.
Builds on
21 of 33 references.
References · 21
- 2017Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networkscited by 4,897
- 2017Prototypical Networks for Few-shot Learningcited by 3,015
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
- 2014How transferable are features in deep neural networks?cited by 1,225
- 2019Which Tasks Should Be Learned Together in Multi-task Learning?cited by 375
- 2018Characterizing and Avoiding Negative Transfercited by 229
- 2021Efficiently Identifying Task Groupings for Multi-Task Learningcited by 222
- 2022Improving Out-of-Distribution Robustness via Selective Augmentationcited by 202
- 2018Large Scale Fine-Grained Categorization and Domain-Specific Transfer Learningcited by 174
- 2020Geometric Dataset Distances via Optimal Transportcited by 158
- 2020Cross-validation Confidence Intervals for Test Errorcited by 33
- 2022Robust angle-based transfer learning in high dimensionscited by 16
9 more
- 2023Methods for Quantifying Dataset Similarity: a Review, Taxonomy and Comparisoncited by 11
- 2023pFedSim: Similarity-Aware Model Aggregation Towards Personalized Federated Learningcited by 9
- 2023Learning Fair Classifiers via Min-Max F-divergence Regularizationcited by 8
- 2022A unified framework for dataset shift diagnosticscited by 7
- 2024Intrinsic Fairness-Accuracy Tradeoffs under Equalized Oddscited by 7
- 2024Improving Accented Speech Recognition using Data Augmentation based on Unsupervised Text-to-Speech Synthesiscited by 5
- 2024Filtered Randomized Smoothing: A New Defense for Robust Modulation Classificationcited by 3
- 2024Learning Fair Robustness via Domain Mixupcited by 2
- 2023The ART of Transfer Learning: An Adaptive and Robust Pipelinecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Separating Covariate Shift from Mechanism Change with Two Discriminators: CJSD, a Conditional Discrepancy with an Exact Covariate-Concept Decompositioncited by 1
- 2026Evidence Before Expansion: Reuse, Spawn, or Defer in Lifelong Expert Poolscited by 0
- 2026A Shared Encoder Is Not a Shared Task: Conditional Comparison for Deep Expert Poolscited by 0
- 2026A Shared Encoder Is Not a Shared Task: Conditional Comparison for Deep Expert Pools21 Aug 2026
- 2026Evidence Before Expansion: Reuse, Spawn, or Defer in Lifelong Expert Pools20 Aug 2026
- 2026Separating Covariate Shift from Mechanism Change with Two Discriminators: CJSD, a Conditional Discrepancy with an Exact Covariate-Concept Decomposition20 Aug 2026