<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Less Biased Evaluation of Out-of-distribution Sample Detectors · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.04729/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.04729/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Less Biased Evaluation of Out-of-distribution Sample Detectors — mentioned by ericjang</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18412087</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.04729:18412087</guid><pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:13:31 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Great question! This is actually a surprisingly deep problem in ML, known as &amp;quot;anomaly detection&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;out-of-distribution&amp;quot; (OoD) detection. Another way to formulate this question: &amp;quot;given training data that only tells you about digits, how do you know whether something is a digit or not?&amp;quot; Given that the training data never actually defines what isn&amp;#x27;t a digit, how can we ensure that the model actually sees a digit at test time? If we cannot ensure this (e.g. an adversary or the real world supplies inputs), how can we &amp;quot;filter out&amp;quot; bad inputs? A quick hack solution that works well in practice is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.04729/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
