# A Comparative Study of Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Out-of-Distribution Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10181 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.10181/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03888/) (2018)
- [Energy-based Out-of-distribution Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03759/) (2020)
- [Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.11063/) (2017)
- [Generalized Out-of-Distribution Detection: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.11334/) (2021)
- [VinDr-CXR: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist's annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15029/) (2020)
- [G1020: A Benchmark Retinal Fundus Image Dataset for Computer-Aided Glaucoma Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.09158/) (2020)
- [Detection of multiple retinal diseases in ultra-widefield fundus images using deep learning: data-driven identification of relevant regions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.06113/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection is essential for building reliable AI systems, as models that produce outputs for invalid inputs cannot be trusted. Although deep learning (DL) is often assumed to outperform traditional machine learning (ML), medical imaging data are typically acquired under standardized protocols, leading to relatively constrained image variability in OOD detection tasks. This motivates a direct comparison between ML and DL approaches in this setting. The two approaches are evaluated on open datasets comprising over 60,000 fundus and non-fundus images across multiple resolutions. Both approaches achieved an AUROC of 1.000 and accuracies between 0.999 and 1.000 on internal and external validation sets, showing comparable detection performance. The ML approach, however, exhibited substantially lower end-to-end latency while maintaining equivalent accuracy, indicating greater computational efficiency. These results suggest that for OOD detection tasks of limited visual complexity, lightweight ML approaches can achieve DL-level performance with significantly reduced computational cost, supporting practical real-world deployment.