Don't Collapse Your Features: Why CenterLoss Hurts OOD Detection and Multi-Scale Mahalanobis Wins
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The ability to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs is fundamental to safe deployment of machine learning systems. Yet, current methods often rely on feature representations that are optimised solely for classification accuracy, neglecting the distinct requirements of epistemic uncertainty. We introduce GOEN (Geometry-Optimised Epistemic Network), a simple pipeline that combines multi-scale features, L2 normalisation, Mahalanobis distance, and a calibration head trained with real hard OOD examples. Through systematic ablation we uncover a counter-intuitive finding: CenterLoss, a popular regulariser for feature compactness, significantly degrades OOD detection performance, reducing average OOD AUROC from 0.9483 to 0.9366 despite improving classification accuracy. The best variant, GOEN-NoCenterLoss, achieves an average OOD AUROC of 0.9483, surpassing all baselines including deep ensembles (0.8827), KNN (0.8967), and ODIN (0.8870) on CIFAR-10 benchmarks, while maintaining competitive in-distribution accuracy. Our results challenge the prevailing assumption that better classification geometry automatically leads to better epistemic uncertainty. Instead, we show that overly tight feature clusters compress inter-class margins and distort the covariance structure needed for effective OOD detection. GOEN is efficient, training in under 20 minutes on a single GPU, and provides a practical blueprint for building AI systems that reliably recognise their own limitations.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2026.
Builds on
25 of 40 references.
References · 25
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2020The Many Faces of Robustness: A Critical Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 1,850
- 2018A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attackscited by 1,485
- 2017Enhancing The Reliability of Out-of-distribution Image Detection in Neural Networkscited by 1,328
- 2020Energy-based Out-of-distribution Detectioncited by 1,299
- 2018Evidential Deep Learning to Quantify Classification Uncertaintycited by 732
- 2022Out-of-Distribution Detection with Deep Nearest Neighborscited by 600
- 2019On Mixup Training: Improved Calibration and Predictive Uncertainty for Deep Neural Networkscited by 305
- 2021Epistemic Neural Networkscited by 120
13 more
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Mixture-of-Experts: Algorithms, Theory, and Applicationscited by 91
- 2023A Survey on Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Deep Learningcited by 81
- 2020Robust Out-of-distribution Detection for Neural Networkscited by 57
- 2023Detecting Out-of-Distribution Through the Lens of Neural Collapsecited by 34
- 2022Adaptive Temperature Scaling for Robust Calibration of Deep Neural Networkscited by 24
- 2022Linking Neural Collapse and L2 Normalization with Improved Out-of-Distribution Detection in Deep Neural Networkscited by 23
- 2021Multi-Class Data Description for Out-of-distribution Detectioncited by 19
- 2024Self-Calibrating Conformal Predictioncited by 16
- 2019On the Validity of Bayesian Neural Networks for Uncertainty Estimationcited by 14
- 2022Quantification of Deep Neural Network Prediction Uncertainties for VVUQ of Machine Learning Modelscited by 9
- 2025Controllable-LPMoE: Adapting to Challenging Object Segmentation via Dynamic Local Priors from Mixture-of-Expertscited by 9
- 2022Performance Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Detection on Trained Neural Networkscited by 7
- 2024Theory of Mixture-of-Experts for Mobile Edge Computingcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.