pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23609 · v1 · pith:FBRAVISZnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CV

Discovering Latent Groups for Robust Classification

Ankur Garg , Ulrich A\"ivodji , Samira Ebrahimi Kahou , Vincent Michalski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CV
keywords neural classification treesrobust classificationspurious correlationslatent subgroupsunsupervised group discoveryinterpretabilitysubgroup robustness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neural classification trees disentangle latent subgroups by routing samples to easy or hard nodes using prediction correctness as pseudo-labels, without needing subgroup labels.

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

The paper introduces neural classification trees that encode subgroup structure directly in a tree architecture to handle spurious correlations. Samples are routed to easy or hard nodes based on whether the current model predicts them correctly, and these routes become pseudo-labels for the next training iteration. This iterative process separates conflicting subgroups in the data. The resulting tree gives both competitive robustness on benchmarks and a visible mapping from architecture to latent group structure. A reader would care because it turns model errors into a signal for discovering hidden biases without extra annotations.

Core claim

By building a tree-shaped network and routing each sample to an easy or hard node according to prediction correctness, then reusing the routes as pseudo-labels in subsequent iterations, neural classification trees disentangle conflicting subgroups in the absence of subgroup supervision, while producing both robust class predictions and an interpretable tree topology that isolates minority subgroups.

What carries the argument

Neural classification trees that route samples to easy or hard nodes based on prediction correctness and reuse those routes as pseudo-labels to separate latent subgroups.

If this is right

  • The tree topology consistently isolates minority subgroups across the five evaluated benchmarks.
  • The architecture supplies a transparent mapping between model structure and the data's latent group structure.
  • The method achieves competitive robustness with existing state-of-the-art approaches that rely on pseudo-group labels.
  • At inference the model returns both a class prediction and the subgroup path through the tree.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The routing mechanism could be adapted to other model families beyond trees to surface latent structure.
  • The approach may help debug models by making the learned group separations explicit in the architecture.
  • Prediction errors might serve as a general unsupervised signal for discovering hidden data partitions in other settings.

Load-bearing premise

Routing decisions based only on whether the current model predicts a sample correctly will reliably surface and separate the latent subgroup structure over iterations without any external supervision.

What would settle it

A controlled dataset with known spurious correlations where the learned tree routes fail to isolate the minority subgroup or where the routes do not align with the actual group structure after several iterations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23609 by Ankur Garg, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Ulrich A\"ivodji, Vincent Michalski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NCT inference. Backbone features propagate through parent-to-child head connections across iterations. The argmax over all leaf node outputs determines the group label, encoding both class and difficulty path. NCT Architecture Sample Backbone Parent Heads K Heads K Probs argmax Predicted Assigned (node ℓ) Match? 2ℓ (easy) 2ℓ+1 (hard) Yes No [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Routing mechanism. A sample’s current node assignment ℓ (t) i is updated based on prediction correctness: correctly classified samples proceed to the easy branch, while misclassified samples are routed to the hard branch. 3 Methodology 3.1 Problem Formulation We consider a C-way classification task over a dataset D = {(xi , yi)} N i=1, where xi ∈ X is an input image and yi ∈ {0, . . . , C−1} is the class l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Iteration-2 capture rates. Bar height = % of a subgroup’s population routed to each leaf (mean ± std, five seeds). For CMNIST, each leaf shows the own-class matching-colour subgroup (left bar) and the four own-class mismatched-colour subgroups stacked (right bar). subgroup’s population routed to each leaf, averaged across five seeds. Across all datasets, majority subgroups concentrate in easy leaves while … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Iteration-2 LayerGradCAM attributions. Easy leaves (left) localize on the spurious cue—background on Waterbirds, the color-patch artifact on ISIC, the face on CelebA. Hard leaves (right) shift attention to the semantic class feature: the bird body, the lesion, and the hair respectively. Waterbirds. The easy waterbird leaf attends to the water and surrounding scene—the lake surface and the wake behind the b… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Iteration-3 capture rates. Bar height = % of a subgroup’s population routed to each leaf (mean ± std, five seeds). Iter-3 leaf labels: EE = easy → easy, EH = easy → hard, HE = hard → easy, HH = hard → hard. For CMNIST, each leaf shows the own-class matching-color subgroup (left bar) and the four own-class mismatched-color subgroups stacked (right bar). CelebA. The minority blond-male subgroup concentrates … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Machine learning models exploit spurious correlations, achieving high average accuracy but failing disproportionately on underrepresented subgroups. Existing methods address this by adjusting network parameters, guided either by subgroup annotations or inferred pseudo-group labels. Yet at inference, these methods produce only a class prediction, with no insight into a sample's latent subgroup. We propose neural classification trees (NCT), a framework that achieves robustness by encoding subgroup structure in its tree-shaped architecture. By routing each sample to an "easy" or "hard" node of this tree -- based on prediction correctness -- and reusing these routes as pseudo-labels for the next iteration, NCT disentangles conflicting subgroups, without requiring subgroup supervision. We evaluate NCT on five benchmarks spanning binary and multi-class spurious correlations. Our experiments show that the learned tree topology provides strong interpretability by consistently isolating minority subgroups, which provides a transparent mapping between the model architecture and the data's latent group structure, while yielding competitive robustness with state-of-the-art methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Neural Classification Trees (NCT), a tree-shaped neural architecture for robust classification under spurious correlations. Samples are routed to 'easy' or 'hard' nodes based on whether the current model predicts them correctly; these routes are then reused as pseudo-labels to train the next iteration of the tree. The method claims to disentangle latent subgroups without subgroup annotations, yielding both competitive robustness on five benchmarks and interpretability via a tree topology that isolates minority subgroups.

Significance. If the central claim holds, NCT would be notable for embedding subgroup structure directly in the model architecture rather than post-hoc adjustment, providing both robustness and a transparent mapping from architecture to latent groups. This is a strength relative to methods that output only class predictions. The iterative pseudo-labeling approach, if shown to progressively isolate groups rather than reinforce initial biases, could offer a new direction for unsupervised robust learning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method description (abstract and §3)] The core mechanism (routing by prediction correctness and reusing routes as pseudo-labels) is load-bearing for the claim of disentangling subgroups without supervision. However, when the initial model is dominated by spurious correlations, early routing decisions are likely to group minority samples with majority samples that share the same spurious feature; this can lock in a non-separating partition rather than isolate latent groups. The manuscript provides no theoretical analysis or ablation demonstrating that the process escapes this fixed point.
  2. [Abstract and Experiments (§4)] The abstract states that NCT yields 'competitive robustness with state-of-the-art methods' on five benchmarks, yet the provided text contains no quantitative results, tables, error bars, or implementation details (e.g., tree depth, routing threshold, loss weighting). Without these, the empirical support for the central claim cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the 'easy' and 'hard' nodes and the precise definition of the routing function should be formalized with equations rather than prose description.
  2. [Method] The paper should clarify whether the tree topology is learned jointly or grown iteratively, and how the final inference uses the learned routes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method description (abstract and §3)] The core mechanism (routing by prediction correctness and reusing routes as pseudo-labels) is load-bearing for the claim of disentangling subgroups without supervision. However, when the initial model is dominated by spurious correlations, early routing decisions are likely to group minority samples with majority samples that share the same spurious feature; this can lock in a non-separating partition rather than isolate latent groups. The manuscript provides no theoretical analysis or ablation demonstrating that the process escapes this fixed point.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern that early routing decisions based on an initial model biased by spurious correlations could potentially reinforce non-separating partitions. The manuscript does not contain a formal theoretical analysis of the iterative process or its fixed points. Our empirical evaluation across the five benchmarks shows that the resulting tree topologies consistently isolate minority subgroups, providing evidence that the process does not lock into non-separating partitions in the evaluated settings. We will add further ablations on routing threshold sensitivity and initial model variations in the revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and Experiments (§4)] The abstract states that NCT yields 'competitive robustness with state-of-the-art methods' on five benchmarks, yet the provided text contains no quantitative results, tables, error bars, or implementation details (e.g., tree depth, routing threshold, loss weighting). Without these, the empirical support for the central claim cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We apologize for the omission of quantitative results, tables, error bars, and implementation details in the text provided for review. The full manuscript includes these elements in §4, with performance tables on the five benchmarks (including error bars from multiple runs) and hyperparameter details such as tree depth, routing threshold, and loss weighting. We will revise the manuscript to ensure all empirical results and implementation details are explicitly included and referenced. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: iterative routing is an algorithmic procedure, not a definitional reduction

full rationale

The paper describes an iterative training loop in which samples are routed to easy/hard nodes using the current model's prediction correctness and those routes are then treated as pseudo-labels for the next iteration. This is a standard self-training mechanism applied to a tree architecture; the abstract and method description contain no equations that define the final subgroup disentanglement or robustness metric as a direct function of the same fitted quantities by construction. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and no ansatz or renaming of known results is presented as a derivation. The central claim therefore rests on the empirical behavior of the algorithm under its stated assumptions rather than on any self-referential identity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the effectiveness of correctness-based routing as a proxy for latent group membership; this is an invented mechanism without independent prior evidence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Neural network training can produce useful predictors whose correctness signals subgroup structure
    Invoked in the description of routing and iteration steps.
invented entities (1)
  • Neural Classification Tree (NCT) no independent evidence
    purpose: Tree architecture that encodes and discovers latent subgroup structure
    New framework introduced to achieve robustness and interpretability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5703 in / 1185 out tokens · 29564 ms · 2026-06-26T08:35:51.526013+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , author =

    Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard S Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix Wichmann. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks.Nature Machine Intelligence, 2:665–673, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s42256-020-00257-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-020-00257-z 2020

  2. [2]

    Distributionally robust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case generalization

    Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Distributionally robust neural networks for group shifts: On the importance of regularization for worst-case generalization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Maas, Ran Tao, and Tatsunori B

    Shuxian Liu, Kai-Wei Chang, Andrew L. Maas, Ran Tao, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Environment inference for invariant learning

    Elliot Creager, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, and Richard Zemel. Environment inference for invariant learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Last layer re-training is sufficient for robustness to spurious correlations

    Polina Kirichenko, Pavel Izmailov, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Last layer re-training is sufficient for robustness to spurious correlations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Sohoni, Jared A

    Nimit S. Sohoni, Jared A. Dunnmon, Geoffrey Angus, Albert Gu, and Christopher Ré. No subclass left behind: Fine-grained robustness in coarse-grained classification problems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 19339–19352, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Exmap: Leveraging explainability heatmaps for unsupervised group robustness to spurious correlations

    Rwiddhi Chakraborty, Adrian Sletten, and Michael C Kampffmeyer. Exmap: Leveraging explainability heatmaps for unsupervised group robustness to spurious correlations. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Correct-n-contrast: A contrastive approach for improving robustness to spurious correlations

    Michael Zhang, Nimit S Sohoni, Hongyang R Zhang, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher Ré. Correct-n-contrast: A contrastive approach for improving robustness to spurious correlations. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 26484–26516. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    Discovering environments with xrm

    Mohammad Pezeshki, Diane Bouchacourt, Mark Ibrahim, Nicolas Ballas, Pascal Vincent, and David Lopez-Paz. Discovering environments with xrm. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Learning from failure: Training debiased classifier from biased classifier

    Junhyun Nam, Hyuntak Cha, Sungsoo Ahn, Jaeho Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. Learning from failure: Training debiased classifier from biased classifier. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Selecmix: Debiased learning by contradicting-pair sampling

    Inwoo Hwang, Sangjun Lee, Yunhyeok Kwak, Seong Joon Oh, Damien Teney, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. Selecmix: Debiased learning by contradicting-pair sampling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Improving group robustness on spurious correlation requires preciser group inference

    Yujin Han and Difan Zou. Improving group robustness on spurious correlation requires preciser group inference. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 17480– 17504, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Masktune: Mitigating spurious correlations by forcing to explore

    Saeid Asgari Taghanaki, Kumar Abhishek, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Amir Azimi. Masktune: Mitigating spurious correlations by forcing to explore. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Concept bottleneck models

    Pang Wei Koh, Thao Nguyen, Yew Siang Tang, Stephen Mussmann, Emma Pierson, Been Kim, and Percy Liang. Concept bottleneck models. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5338–5348. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Hacihadibadi

    Md Rifat Arefin, Yan Zhang, Elnaz Barshan, Xiang Yue, Kenji Kawaguchi, and H. Hacihadibadi. Unsupervised concept discovery mitigates spurious correlations. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Neural prototype trees for interpretable fine-grained image recognition

    Meike Nauta, Ron van Bree, and Christin Seifert. Neural prototype trees for interpretable fine-grained image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14933–14943, 2021. 10

    2021

  17. [17]

    Gonzalez

    Alvin Wan, Lisa Dunlap, Daniel Ho, Jihan Yin, Scott Lee, Henry Jin, Suzanne Petryk, Sarah Adel Bargal, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. NBDT: Neural-backed decision tree. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

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

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

    2017

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    Adaptive neural trees

    Ryutaro Tanno, Kai Arulkumaran, Daniel Alexander, Antonio Criminisi, and Aditya Nori. Adaptive neural trees. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 6166–6175. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem.Psychology of learning and motivation, 24:109–165, 1989

    Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem.Psychology of learning and motivation, 24:109–165, 1989

    1989

  22. [22]

    The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks

    Harshay Shah, Kaustav Tamuly, Aditi Raghunathan, Prateek Jain, and Praneeth Netrapalli. The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9573–9585, 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks

    Katherine Hermann, Ting Chen, and Simon Kornblith. The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 19000–19015, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. InProceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    Noel C. F. Codella, David Gutman, M. Emre Celebi, Brian Helba, Michael A. Marchetti, Stephen W. Dusza, Aadi Kalloo, Konstantinos Liopyris, Nabin Mishra, Harald Kittler, and Allan Halpern. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 international symposium on biomedical imaging (isbi), hosted by the international skin imaging co...

    2017

  26. [26]

    The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions.Scientific Data, 5(1): 1–9, 2018

    Philipp Tschandl, Cliff Rosendahl, and Harald Kittler. The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions.Scientific Data, 5(1): 1–9, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    Invariant risk mini- mization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893, 2019

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  28. [28]

    Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  31. [31]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  32. [32]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2623–2631, 2019. 11

    2019

  33. [33]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization

    Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 618–626, 2017

    2017

  34. [34]

    The caltech- ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset

    Catherine Wah, Steve Branson, Peter Welinder, Pietro Perona, and Serge Belongie. The caltech- ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset. Technical Report CNS-TR-2011-001, California Institute of Technology, 2011

    2011

  35. [35]

    RRC” = RandomResizedCrop; “RC(s, p)

    Bolei Zhou, Agata Lapedriza, Aditya Khosla, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 40(6):1452–1464, 2018. 12 Appendix Contents A Extended Experimental Setup 14 A.1 Dataset Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

    2018