A Closer Look at In-Distribution vs. Out-of-Distribution Accuracy for Open-Set Test-time Adaptation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Open-set test-time adaptation (TTA) updates models on new data in the presence of input shifts and unknown output classes. While recent methods have made progress on improving in-distribution (InD) accuracy for known classes, their ability to accurately detect out-of-distribution (OOD) unknown classes remains underexplored. We benchmark robust and open-set TTA methods (SAR, OSTTA, UniEnt, and SoTTA) on the standard corruption benchmarks of CIFAR-10-C at the small scale and ImageNet-C at the large scale. For CIFAR-10-C, we use OOD data from SVHN and CIFAR-100 in their respective corrupted forms of SVHN-C and CIFAR-100-C. For ImageNet-C, we use OOD data from ImageNet-O and Textures in their respective corrupted forms of ImageNet-O-C and Textures-C. ImageNet-O is nearer to ImageNet, as unknown but related object classes (like ''garlic bread'' vs. ''hot dog'' for food, or ''highway'' vs. ''dam'' for infrastructure), while Textures is farther from ImageNet, as non-object patterns (like ''cracked'' mud, ''porous'' sponge, ''veined'' leaves). We evaluate the accuracy and confidence of TTA methods for InD vs. OOD recognition on CIFAR-10-C and ImageNet-C. We verify the accuracy of each method's own OOD detection technique on CIFAR-10-C. We also evaluate on ImageNet-C and report both accuracy and standard OOD detection metrics. We further examine more realistic settings, in which the proportions and rates of OOD data can vary. To explore the trade-off between InD recognition and OOD rejection, we propose a new baseline that replaces softmax/multi-class output with sigmoid/multi-label output. Our analysis shows for the first time that current open-set TTA methods struggle to balance InD and OOD accuracy and that they only imperfectly filter OOD data for their own adaptation updates.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.
Builds on
19 of 28 references.
References · 19
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
- 2013Describing Textures in the Wildcited by 2,110
- 2014Unsupervised Domain Adaptation by Backpropagationcited by 1,906
- 2020The Many Faces of Robustness: A Critical Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 1,842
- 2019Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 1,401
- 2019AugMix: A Simple Data Processing Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 897
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 799
- 2020RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmarkcited by 659
- 2020Improving robustness against common corruptions by covariate shift adaptationcited by 427
7 more
- 2023Towards Stable Test-Time Adaptation in Dynamic Wild Worldcited by 409
- 2018Reducing Network Agnostophobiacited by 165
- 2018Open Set Domain Adaptation by Backpropagationcited by 150
- 2023SoTTA: Robust Test-Time Adaptation on Noisy Data Streamscited by 63
- 2023Towards Open-Set Test-Time Adaptation Utilizing the Wisdom of Crowds in Entropy Minimizationcited by 39
- 2021If your data distribution shifts, use self-learningcited by 36
- 2024Unified Entropy Optimization for Open-Set Test-Time Adaptationcited by 17
Built on by
Not cited yet.