We categorize meta-learning evaluation into two settings: $\textit{in-distribution}$ [ID], in which the train and test tasks are sampled $\textit{iid}$ from the same underlying task distribution, and $\textit{out-of-distribution}$ [OOD], in which they are not. While most meta-learning theory and some FSL applications follow the ID setting, we identify that most existing few-shot classification benchmarks instead reflect OOD evaluation, as they use disjoint sets of train (base) and test (novel) classes for task generation. This discrepancy is problematic because -- as we show on numerous benchmarks -- meta-learning methods that perform better on existing OOD datasets may perform significantly worse in the ID setting. In addition, in the OOD setting, even though current FSL benchmarks seem befitting, our study highlights concerns in 1) reliably performing model selection for a given meta-learning method, and 2) consistently comparing the performance of different methods. To address these concerns, we provide suggestions on how to construct FSL benchmarks to allow for ID evaluation as well as more reliable OOD evaluation. Our work aims to inform the meta-learning community about the importance and distinction of ID vs. OOD evaluation, as well as the subtleties of OOD evaluation with current benchmarks.

The CP model cannot yet learn stochastic dynamics.

A majority of recent work in AI assesses models' generalization capabilities through the lens of performance on out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets. Despite their practicality, such evaluations build upon a strong assumption: that OOD evaluations can capture and reflect upon possible failures in a real-world deployment. In this work, we challenge this assumption and confront the results obtained from OOD evaluations with a set of specific failure modes documented in existing question-answering (QA) models, referred to as a reliance on spurious features or prediction shortcuts. We find that different datasets used for OOD evaluations in QA provide an estimate of models' robustness to shortcuts that have a vastly different quality, some largely under-performing even a simple, in-distribution evaluation. We partially attribute this to the observation that spurious shortcuts are shared across ID+OOD datasets, but also find cases where a dataset's quality for training and evaluation is largely disconnected. Our work underlines limitations of commonly-used OOD-based evaluations of generalization, and provides methodology and recommendations for evaluating generalization within and beyond QA more robustly.

Target-directed agents utilize self-generated targets, to guide their behaviors for better generalization. These agents are prone to blindly chasing problematic targets, resulting in worse generalization and safety catastrophes. We show that these behaviors can be results of delusions, stemming from improper designs around training: the agent may naturally come to hold false beliefs about certain targets. We identify delusions via intuitive examples in controlled environments, and investigate their causes and mitigations. With the insights, we demonstrate how we can make agents address delusions preemptively and autonomously. We validate empirically the effectiveness of the proposed strategies in correcting delusional behaviors and improving out-of-distribution generalization.

We categorize meta-learning evaluation into two settings: \textit{in-distribution} [ID], in which the train and test tasks are sampled \textit{iid} from the same underlying task distribution, and \textit{out-of-distribution} [OOD], in which they are not. While most meta-learning theory and some FSL applications follow the ID setting, we identify that most existing few-shot classification benchmarks instead reflect OOD evaluation, as they use disjoint sets of train (base) and test (novel) classes for task generation. This discrepancy is problematic because -- as we show on numerous benchmarks -- meta-learning methods that perform better on existing OOD datasets may perform significantly worse in the ID setting. In addition, in the OOD setting, even though current FSL benchmarks seem befitting, our study highlights concerns in 1) reliably performing model selection for a given meta-learning method, and 2) consistently comparing the performance of different methods. To address these concerns, we provide suggestions on how to construct FSL benchmarks to allow for ID evaluation as well as more reliable OOD evaluation.

Machine learning models, while progressively advanced, rely heavily on the IID assumption, which is often unfulfilled in practice due to inevitable distribution shifts. This renders them susceptible and untrustworthy for deployment in risk-sensitive applications. Such a significant problem has consequently spawned various branches of works dedicated to developing algorithms capable of Out-of-Distribution (OOD) generalization. Despite these efforts, much less attention has been paid to the evaluation of OOD generalization, which is also a complex and fundamental problem. Its goal is not only to assess whether a model's OOD generalization capability is strong or not, but also to evaluate where a model generalizes well or poorly. This entails characterizing the types of distribution shifts that a model can effectively address, and identifying the safe and risky input regions given a model. This paper serves as the first effort to conduct a comprehensive review of OOD evaluation. We categorize existing research into three paradigms: OOD performance testing, OOD performance prediction, and OOD intrinsic property characterization, according to the availability of test data. Additionally, we briefly discuss OOD evaluation in the context of pretrained models. In closing, we propose several promising directions for future research in OOD evaluation.

Current machine learning methods for medical image analysis primarily focus on developing models tailored for their specific tasks, utilizing data within their target domain. These specialized models tend to be data-hungry and often exhibit limitations in generalizing to out-of-distribution samples. Recently, foundation models have been proposed, which combine data from various domains and demonstrate excellent generalization capabilities. Building upon this, this work introduces the incorporation of diverse medical image domains, including different imaging modalities like X-ray, MRI, CT, and ultrasound images, as well as various viewpoints such as axial, coronal, and sagittal views. We refer to this approach as multi-domain model and compare its performance to that of specialized models. Our findings underscore the superior generalization capabilities of multi-domain models, particularly in scenarios characterized by limited data availability and out-of-distribution, frequently encountered in healthcare applications. The integration of diverse data allows multi-domain models to utilize shared information across domains, enhancing the overall outcomes significantly. To illustrate, for organ recognition, multi-domain model can enhance accuracy by up to 10% compared to conventional specialized models.