Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 73 references

Learning Subset-Shared Invariances for Domain Generalization with Mixture-of-Experts

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-25 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Enforcing invariance across all domains discards predictive factors shared only in subsets, limiting generalization.

desk verdict The paper shows that global invariance hurts DG when domains are heterogeneous and offers a MoE route to subset-shared invariances, with benchmark gains, but the routing objectives may not reliably prevent collapse or trivial solutions. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.25665 v1 pith:OPYAKF2A submitted 2026-06-24 cs.LG

Tien-Hung Nguyen , Tien-Dat Tran , M.-Duong Nguyen , Kok-Seng Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords domaingeneralizationmixtureofexpertsinvariancelearningout-of-domainrepresentationroutingmechanismBedbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper demonstrates that requiring a representation to be invariant across every source domain restricts the space of usable features, throwing away predictors that work well within groups of domains but not universally. It proposes to instead learn subset-shared invariances, where each subset of domains has its own stable predictive structure. This is realized through a mixture-of-experts model in which experts align domains within their subsets and a router combines the appropriate experts for each input. Experiments on standard benchmarks show gains in accuracy on unseen target domains, particularly when source domains differ substantially from one another.

What carries the argument

mixture-of-experts architecture implementing routing-conditioned subset-shared invariance, where each expert aligns specific domains and the router composes components for prediction

What would settle it

A controlled experiment on a synthetic dataset with known subset structures where the mixture-of-experts method shows no improvement over global invariance methods.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Enforcing invariance across more domains gradually restricts the feasible representation space, discarding transferable predictive factors that are not universally shared. The proposed subset-shared invariance with a mixture-of-experts architecture improves out-of-domain generalization by allowing predictive structure to be stable only within domain subsets.

Load-bearing premise

Predictive structure remains stable within domain subsets and the mixture-of-experts can learn to route without overfitting or failing to specialize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Improved out-of-domain generalization on DomainBed benchmarks
  • Greater robustness as domain heterogeneity increases
  • Domain generalization benefits from modeling partially shared structure rather than a single global invariance
  • Selective alignment, confident routing, and diverse specialization encourage effective decomposition

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Routing mechanisms could be adapted to other multi-domain settings like federated learning where data distributions vary across clients.
  • Specialized experts might provide insight into which domain subsets share predictive factors.
  • Further gains may come from allowing the number of experts to grow with the number of domains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that enforcing invariance across all source domains in domain generalization restricts the representation space by discarding predictive factors not universally shared. It proposes subset-shared invariance via a mixture-of-experts architecture in which each expert aligns a specific domain subset, a routing mechanism composes subset-invariant components, and auxiliary objectives encourage selective alignment, confident/balanced routing, and expert diversity. Experiments on DomainBed benchmarks are reported to show improved out-of-domain generalization and robustness under increasing domain heterogeneity.

Significance. If the routing successfully discovers stable, non-trivial domain subsets whose predictive factors are not globally shared, the work would provide a concrete mechanism for moving beyond single global invariance in DG. The combination of per-expert alignment losses with routing regularizers is a clear technical contribution; reproducible code or ablations isolating the effect of each regularizer would further strengthen the result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Mixture-of-Experts Architecture and Training Objectives] The central claim requires that the learned routing discovers stable domain subsets whose predictive factors are not globally shared. Because routing is end-to-end and unsupervised with respect to subset labels, the combination of selective alignment, confident/balanced routing, and diversity objectives may admit collapse (one expert dominates) or trivial solutions (experts differ only in capacity). This is load-bearing; the manuscript should include explicit ablations or diagnostics (e.g., expert activation histograms per domain, comparison against a single-expert baseline) demonstrating that distinct subset structure is recovered rather than global invariance or domain-identity memorization.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the routing function and the per-expert alignment loss should be introduced with a single consistent equation block rather than scattered across paragraphs.
  2. Table captions should explicitly state the number of runs and whether error bars reflect standard deviation or standard error.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. The concern about potential collapse or trivial solutions in the routing mechanism is substantive and directly relevant to our central claim. We address it point-by-point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim requires that the learned routing discovers stable domain subsets whose predictive factors are not globally shared. Because routing is end-to-end and unsupervised with respect to subset labels, the combination of selective alignment, confident/balanced routing, and diversity objectives may admit collapse (one expert dominates) or trivial solutions (experts differ only in capacity). This is load-bearing; the manuscript should include explicit ablations or diagnostics (e.g., expert activation histograms per domain, comparison against a single-expert baseline) demonstrating that distinct subset structure is recovered rather than global invariance or domain-identity memorization.

    Authors: We agree that verifying non-trivial, stable subset discovery is essential and that the current experiments provide only indirect support via improved generalization under heterogeneity. While the performance gains on DomainBed (particularly the robustness trend with increasing domain shift) are inconsistent with complete collapse to a single expert or pure domain memorization, we acknowledge that direct diagnostics are needed. In the revised manuscript we will add: expert activation histograms per domain, a single-expert baseline comparison, and quantitative metrics on routing confidence, balance, and expert diversity. These will appear in a new subsection of the experiments (or appendix) to explicitly rule out the trivial cases raised. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; proposal is architecturally grounded

full rationale

The paper advances a conceptual and architectural proposal for subset-shared invariance via MoE routing and auxiliary objectives (selective alignment, confident/balanced routing, diversity). No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce the central claim to a tautology or input by construction. The argument that global invariance discards non-universal factors is presented as a motivating observation, not a derived result, and the MoE implementation is offered as an independent modeling choice whose effectiveness is to be validated empirically on DomainBed. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks rather than internally forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Insufficient information from abstract only to identify specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Subset-Shared Invariances for Domain Generalization with Mixture-of-Experts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPYAKF2A

@misc{pith2026260625665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Subset-Shared Invariances for Domain Generalization with Mixture-of-Experts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPYAKF2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.25665}
}
read the original abstract

Domain generalization (DG) aims to learn a model from one or more source domains that generalizes to an unseen target domain without accessing target data during training. A common approach enforces invariance of representations across all source domains, assuming predictive structure is globally shared. However, we demonstrate that enforcing invariance across more domains gradually restricts the feasible representation space, discarding transferable predictive factors that are not universally shared. To address this limitation, we propose subset-shared invariance, where predictive structure is assumed stable only within domain subsets. We implement this principle with a mixture-of-experts architecture, where each expert aligns the specific domains it serves and a routing mechanism composes subset-invariant components for prediction. This creates a routing-conditioned invariance, jointly learned with the representation. To facilitate effective decomposition, we develop training objectives that encourage selective alignment, confident and balanced routing, and diverse expert specialization. Experiments on DomainBed benchmarks demonstrate improved out-of-domain generalization and greater robustness under increasing domain heterogeneity. Our results suggest that DG should move beyond enforcing a single global invariance and instead model invariance through partially shared structure across domain subsets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Test accuracy changes as the num￾ber of source domains increases under a fixed training budget. Adding more domains at first improves performance, but after a cer￾tain point, accuracy begins to decline. This pattern shows an important limitation of en￾forcing global invariance. When more het￾erogeneous domains are included, the shared invariant signal weakens and valuable predic￾tive information is lost. In contrast… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of MESSI. An input is encoded by a shared backbone and routed to multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Expert specialization on OfficeHome. (a) Pairwise cosine similarity between expert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Routing diagnostics on the PACS Art domain. Rows correspond to routing aggregations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Routing diagnostics on the PACS Cartoon domain. Rows correspond to routing aggregations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Routing diagnostics on the PACS Photo domain. In each row, the left panel shows GMoE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Routing diagnostics on the PACS Sketch domain. In each row, the left panel shows GMoE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pairwise-to-global invariance sweep on a PACS diagnostic split. We vary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Invariant Risk Minimization

    Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk mini- mization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1907

  2. [2]

    Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta-regularization.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    Yogesh Balaji, Swami Sankaranarayanan, and Rama Chellappa. Metareg: Towards domain generalization using meta-regularization.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Gradient-guided annealing for domain generalization

    Aristotelis Ballas and Christos Diou. Gradient-guided annealing for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 20558–20568, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Recognition in terra incognita

    Sara Beery, Grant Van Horn, and Pietro Perona. Recognition in terra incognita. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 456–473, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    The iwildcam 2021 competi- tion dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03494, 2021

    Sara Beery, Arushi Agarwal, Elijah Cole, and Vighnesh Birodkar. The iwildcam 2021 competi- tion dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03494, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Domain generalization by solving jigsaw puzzles

    Fabio M Carlucci, Antonio D’Innocente, Silvia Bucci, Barbara Caputo, and Tatiana Tommasi. Domain generalization by solving jigsaw puzzles. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2229–2238, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:22405–22418, 2021

    Junbum Cha, Sanghyuk Chun, Kyungjae Lee, Han-Cheol Cho, Seunghyun Park, Yunsung Lee, and Sungrae Park. Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:22405–22418, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Domain generalization by mutual-information regularization with pre-trained models

    Junbum Cha, Kyungjae Lee, Sungrae Park, and Sanghyuk Chun. Domain generalization by mutual-information regularization with pre-trained models. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 440–457, 2022

    2022

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Lfme: A simple framework for learning from multiple experts in domain generalization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:102919–102947, 2024

    Liang Chen, Yong Zhang, Yibing Song, Zhiqiang Shen, and Lingqiao Liu. Lfme: A simple framework for learning from multiple experts in domain generalization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:102919–102947, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Point-moe: Large- scale multi-dataset training with mixture-of-experts for 3d semantic segmentation

    Xuweiyi Chen, Wentao Zhou, Aruni RoyChowdhury, and Zezhou Cheng. Point-moe: Large- scale multi-dataset training with mixture-of-experts for 3d semantic segmentation. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Dis- entangled prompt representation for domain generalization

    De Cheng, Zhipeng Xu, Xinyang Jiang, Nannan Wang, Dongsheng Li, and Xinbo Gao. Dis- entangled prompt representation for domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 23595–23604, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Peer pressure: Model-to-model regular- ization for single source domain generalization

    Dong Kyu Cho, Inwoo Hwang, and Sanghack Lee. Peer pressure: Model-to-model regular- ization for single source domain generalization. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 15360–15370, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    One-step generalization ratio guided optimiza- tion for domain generalization

    Sumin Cho, Dongwon Kim, and Kwangsu Kim. One-step generalization ratio guided optimiza- tion for domain generalization. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Generalizable person re-identification with relevance-aware mixture of experts

    Yongxing Dai, Xiaotong Li, Jun Liu, Zekun Tong, and Ling-Yu Duan. Generalizable person re-identification with relevance-aware mixture of experts. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16145–16154, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Unlearning during training: Domain-specific gradient ascent for domain generalization

    Jingfeng Zhang Di Zhao, Hongsheng Hu, Philippe Fournier-Viger, Gillian Dobbie, and Yun Sing Koh. Unlearning during training: Domain-specific gradient ascent for domain generalization. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Domain generalization via pareto optimal gradient matching

    Khoi Do, Nam-Khanh Le, Quoc-Viet Pham, Binh-Son Hua, Won-Joo Hwang, and Duong Nguyen. Domain generalization via pareto optimal gradient matching. In28th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2025. IOS Press BV , 2025. 10

    2025

  9. [17]

    Domain gener- alization via model-agnostic learning of semantic features.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Qi Dou, Daniel Coelho de Castro, Konstantinos Kamnitsas, and Ben Glocker. Domain gener- alization via model-agnostic learning of semantic features.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Unbiased metric learning: On the utilization of multiple datasets and web images for softening bias

    Chen Fang, Ye Xu, and Daniel N Rockmore. Unbiased metric learning: On the utilization of multiple datasets and web images for softening bias. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1657–1664, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Omoe: Diversifying mixture of low-rank adaptation by orthogonal finetuning

    Jinyuan Feng, Zhiqiang Pu, Tianyi Hu, Dongmin Li, Xiaolin Ai, and Huimu Wang. Omoe: Diversifying mixture of low-rank adaptation by orthogonal finetuning. InEuropean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, François Laviolette, Mario March, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of machine learning research, 17(59):1–35, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23885– 23899, 2021

    Robert Geirhos, Kantharaju Narayanappa, Benjamin Mitzkus, Tizian Thieringer, Matthias Bethge, Felix A Wichmann, and Wieland Brendel. Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23885– 23899, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Domain gen- eralization for object recognition with multi-task autoencoders

    Muhammad Ghifary, W Bastiaan Kleijn, Mengjie Zhang, and David Balduzzi. Domain gen- eralization for object recognition with multi-task autoencoders. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2551–2559, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    In search of lost domain generalization

    Ishaan Gulrajani and David Lopez-Paz. In search of lost domain generalization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Advancing expert specialization for better moe

    Hongcan Guo, Haolang Lu, Guoshun Nan, Bolun Chu, Jialin Zhuang, Yuan Yang, Wenhao Che, Xinye Cao, Sicong Leng, Qimei Cui, et al. Advancing expert specialization for better moe. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Dynamic mixture of experts: An auto-tuning approach for efficient transformer models

    Yongxin Guo, Zhenglin Cheng, Xiaoying Tang, Zhaopeng Tu, and Tao Lin. Dynamic mixture of experts: An auto-tuning approach for efficient transformer models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Learning time-aware causal representation for model generalization in evolving domains

    Zhuo He, Shuang Li, Wenze Song, Longhui Yuan, Jian Liang, Han Li, and Kun Gai. Learning time-aware causal representation for model generalization in evolving domains. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Multi-task reinforcement learning with mixture of orthogonal experts

    Ahmed Hendawy, Jan Peters, and Carlo D’Eramo. Multi-task reinforcement learning with mixture of orthogonal experts. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=aZH1dM3GOX

    2024

  21. [29]

    Learn to preserve and diversify: Parameter-efficient group with orthogonal regularization for domain generalization

    Jiajun Hu, Jian Zhang, Lei Qi, Yinghuan Shi, and Yang Gao. Learn to preserve and diversify: Parameter-efficient group with orthogonal regularization for domain generalization. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 198–216, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neural computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991

    Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neural computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991

    1991

  23. [31]

    Qt-dog: Quantization-aware training for domain generalization

    Saqib Javed, Hieu Le, and Mathieu Salzmann. Qt-dog: Quantization-aware training for domain generalization. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Customizing domain adapters for domain generalization

    Yuyang Ji, Zeyi Huang, Haohan Wang, and Yong Jae Lee. Customizing domain adapters for domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 934–944, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 11

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubramani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. InInternational conference on machine learning, pa...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Sparse mixture-of-experts are domain generalizable learners

    Bo Li, Yifei Shen, Jingkang Yang, Yezhen Wang, Jiawei Ren, Tong Che, Jun Zhang, and Ziwei Liu. Sparse mixture-of-experts are domain generalizable learners. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Towards single- source domain generalized object detection via causal visual prompts

    Chen Li, Huiying Xu, Changxin Gao, Zeyu Wang, Yun Liu, and Xinzhong Zhu. Towards single- source domain generalized object detection via causal visual prompts. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization

    Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5542–5550, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Prompt-driven dynamic object-centric learning for single domain generalization

    Deng Li, Aming Wu, Yaowei Wang, and Yahong Han. Prompt-driven dynamic object-centric learning for single domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17606–17615, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning

    Haoliang Li, Sinno Jialin Pan, Shiqi Wang, and Alex C Kot. Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5400–5409, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Flat- lora: Low-rank adaptation over a flat loss landscape

    Tao Li, Zhengbao He, Yujun Li, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, and Xiaolin Huang. Flat- lora: Low-rank adaptation over a flat loss landscape. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 34549–34563. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Generalizing vision-language models with dedicated prompt guidance

    Xinyao Li, Yinjie Min, Hongbo Chen, Zhekai Du, Fengling Li, and Jingjing Li. Generalizing vision-language models with dedicated prompt guidance. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 23239–23247, 2026

    2026

  34. [42]

    Deep domain generalization via conditional invariant adversarial networks

    Ya Li, Xinmei Tian, Mingming Gong, Yajing Liu, Tongliang Liu, Kun Zhang, and Dacheng Tao. Deep domain generalization via conditional invariant adversarial networks. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 624–639, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Causality inspired representation learning for domain generalization

    Fangrui Lv, Jian Liang, Shuang Li, Bin Zang, Chi Harold Liu, Ziteng Wang, and Di Liu. Causality inspired representation learning for domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8046–8056, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Domain generalization using causal matching

    Divyat Mahajan, Shruti Tople, and Amit Sharma. Domain generalization using causal matching. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 7313–7324. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Domain generalization via gradient surgery

    Lucas Mansilla, Rodrigo Echeveste, Diego H Milone, and Enzo Ferrante. Domain generalization via gradient surgery. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6630–6638, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Domain generalization via invariant feature representation

    Krikamol Muandet, David Balduzzi, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Domain generalization via invariant feature representation. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 10–18. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Federated domain generalization with data-free on-server matching gradient

    Trong Binh Nguyen, Duong Minh Nguyen, Jinsun Park, Viet Quoc Pham, and Won-Joo Hwang. Federated domain generalization with data-free on-server matching gradient. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Pace: Marrying generalization in parameter-efficient fine-tuning with consistency regularization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:61238–61266, 2024

    Yao Ni, Shan Zhang, and Piotr Koniusz. Pace: Marrying generalization in parameter-efficient fine-tuning with consistency regularization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:61238–61266, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Multilinear mixture of experts: Scal- able expert specialization through factorization

    James Oldfield, Markos Georgopoulos, Grigorios Chrysos, Christos Tzelepis, Yannis Panagakis, Mihalis Nicolaou, Jiankang Deng, and Ioannis Patras. Multilinear mixture of experts: Scal- able expert specialization through factorization. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Ne...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Minimal semantic sufficiency meets unsupervised do- main generalization

    Tan Pan, Kaiyu Guo, Dongli Xu, Zhaorui Tan, Chen Jiang, Deshu Chen, Xin Guo, Brian C Lovell, LIMEI HAN, Yuan Cheng, et al. Minimal semantic sufficiency meets unsupervised do- main generalization. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation

    Xingchao Peng, Qinxun Bai, Xide Xia, Zijun Huang, Kate Saenko, and Bo Wang. Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1406–1415, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Efficient domain generalization via common-specific low-rank decomposition

    Vihari Piratla, Praneeth Netrapalli, and Sunita Sarawagi. Efficient domain generalization via common-specific low-rank decomposition. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 7728–7738. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Fishr: Invariant gradient variances for out-of-distribution generalization

    Alexandre Rame, Corentin Dancette, and Matthieu Cord. Fishr: Invariant gradient variances for out-of-distribution generalization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18347–18377. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training

    Shiv Shankar, Vihari Piratla, Soumen Chakrabarti, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Preethi Jyothi, and Sunita Sarawagi. Generalizing across domains via cross-gradient training. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Gradient matching for domain generalization

    Yuge Shi, Jeffrey Seely, Philip HS Torr, N Siddharth, Awni Hannun, Nicolas Usunier, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Gradient matching for domain generalization. In10th International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, pages 1–28, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 443–450, 2016

    2016

  50. [58]

    Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 10347–10357. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Principles of risk minimization for learning theory.Advances in neural information processing systems, 4, 1991

    Vladimir Vapnik. Principles of risk minimization for learning theory.Advances in neural information processing systems, 4, 1991

    1991

  52. [60]

    Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Hemanth Venkateswara, Jose Eusebio, Shayok Chakraborty, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. Deep hashing network for unsupervised domain adaptation. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5018–5027, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Sharpness-aware gradient matching for domain generalization

    Pengfei Wang, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Zhen Lei, and Lei Zhang. Sharpness-aware gradient matching for domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3769–3778, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Lost domain generalization is a natural con- sequence of lack of training domains

    Yimu Wang, Yihan Wu, and Hongyang Zhang. Lost domain generalization is a natural con- sequence of lack of training domains. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 15689–15697, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Indirect alignment and relationships preservation for domain generalization

    Wei Wei, Zixiong Li, Jing Yan, Mingwen Shao, and Lin Li. Indirect alignment and relationships preservation for domain generalization. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2054–2062, 2025

  56. [64]

    Stronger fewer & superior: Harnessing vision foundation models for domain generalized semantic segmentation

    Zhixiang Wei, Lin Chen, Yi Jin, Xiaoxiao Ma, Tianle Liu, Pengyang Ling, Ben Wang, Huaian Chen, and Jinjin Zheng. Stronger fewer & superior: Harnessing vision foundation models for domain generalized semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Domain generalization in clip via learning with diverse text prompts

    Changsong Wen, Zelin Peng, Yu Huang, Xiaokang Yang, and Wei Shen. Domain generalization in clip via learning with diverse text prompts. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9559–9569, 2025. 13

    2025

  58. [66]

    Dynamic sparse training versus dense training: The unexpected winner in image corruption robustness

    Boqian WU. Dynamic sparse training versus dense training: The unexpected winner in image corruption robustness. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    Reasoning-driven multimodal llm for domain generalization

    Zhipeng Xu, Zilong Wang, XINY ANG JIANG, Dongsheng Li, De Cheng, and Nannan Wang. Reasoning-driven multimodal llm for domain generalization. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  60. [68]

    Im- proving domain generalization with domain relations

    Huaxiu Yao, Xinyu Yang, Xinyi Pan, Shengchao Liu, Pang Wei Koh, and Chelsea Finn. Im- proving domain generalization with domain relations. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Integrating markov blanket discovery into causal representation learning for domain generalization

    Naiyu Yin, Hanjing Wang, Yue Yu, Tian Gao, Amit Dhurandhar, and Qiang Ji. Integrating markov blanket discovery into causal representation learning for domain generalization. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 271–288, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Soma: Singular value decomposed minor components adaptation for domain generalizable representation learning

    Seokju Yun, Seunghye Chae, Dongheon Lee, and Youngmin Ro. Soma: Singular value decomposed minor components adaptation for domain generalizable representation learning. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 25602–25612, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Flex-moe: Modeling arbitrary modality combination via the flexible mixture-of-experts

    Sukwon Yun, Inyoung Choi, Jie Peng, Yangfan Wu, Jingxuan Bao, Qiyiwen Zhang, Jiayi Xin, Qi Long, and Tianlong Chen. Flex-moe: Modeling arbitrary modality combination via the flexible mixture-of-experts. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys...

    2024

  64. [72]

    Towards principled disentanglement for domain generalization

    Hanlin Zhang, Yi-Fan Zhang, Weiyang Liu, Adrian Weller, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Eric P Xing. Towards principled disentanglement for domain generalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8024–8034, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Domain generalization with mixstyle

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. Domain generalization with mixstyle. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 14 A Proofs A.1 Proof of Proposition 3.1 Proof.SinceK ⊆ K ′, we have P(K)⊆ P(K ′).(9) Therefore, X (i,j)∈P(K ′) I(Z;D|Y, D∈ {i...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed June 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.