Test Time Adaptation (TTA) addresses the problem of distribution shift by adapting a pretrained model to a new domain during inference. When faced with challenging shifts, most methods collapse and perform worse than the original pretrained model. In this paper, we find that not all layers are equally receptive to the adaptation, and the layers with the most misaligned gradients often cause performance degradation. To address this, we propose GALA, a novel layer selection criterion to identify the most beneficial updates to perform during test time adaptation. This criterion can also filter out unreliable samples with noisy gradients. Its simplicity allows seamless integration with existing TTA loss functions, thereby preventing degradation and focusing adaptation on the most trainable layers. This approach also helps to regularize adaptation to preserve the pretrained features, which are crucial for handling unseen domains. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed layer selection framework improves the performance of existing TTA approaches across multiple datasets, domain shifts, model architectures, and TTA losses.

The XAI Disagreement Problem concerns the fact that various explainability methods yield different local/global insights on model behavior. Thus, given the lack of ground truth in explainability, practitioners are left wondering “Which explanation should I believe?”. In this work, we approach the Disagreement Problem from the point of view of Functional Decomposition (FD). First, we demonstrate that many XAI techniques disagree because they handle feature interactions differently. Secondly, we reduce interactions locally by fitting a so-called FD-Tree, which partitions the input space into regions where the model is approximately additive. Thus instead of providing global explanations aggregated over the whole dataset, we advocate reporting the FD-Tree structure as well as the regional explanations extracted from its leaves. The beneficial effects of FD-Trees on the Disagreement Problem are demonstrated on toy and real datasets.

Despite extensive research on adversarial training strategies to improve robustness, the decisions of even the most robust deep learning models can still be quite sensitive to imperceptible perturbations, creating serious risks when deploying them for high-stakes real-world applications. While detecting such cases may be critical, evaluating a model's vulnerability at a per-instance level using adversarial attacks is computationally too intensive and unsuitable for real-time deployment scenarios. The input space margin is the exact score to detect non-robust samples and is intractable for deep neural networks. This paper introduces the concept of margin consistency -- a property that links the input space margins and the logit margins in robust models -- for efficient detection of vulnerable samples. First, we establish that margin consistency is a necessary and sufficient condition to use a model's logit margin as a score for identifying non-robust samples. Next, through comprehensive empirical analysis of various robustly trained models on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 datasets, we show that they indicate high margin consistency with a strong correlation between their input space margins and the logit margins. Then, we show that we can effectively use the logit margin to confidently detect brittle decisions with such models. Finally, we address cases where the model is not sufficiently margin-consistent by learning a pseudo-margin from the feature representation. Our findings highlight the potential of leveraging deep representations to efficiently assess adversarial vulnerability in deployment scenarios.

Post-hoc global/local feature attribution methods are progressively being employed to understand the decisions of complex machine learning models. Yet, because of limited amounts of data, it is possible to obtain a diversity of models with good empirical performance but that provide very different explanations for the same prediction, making it hard to derive insight from them. In this work, instead of aiming at reducing the under-specification of model explanations, we fully embrace it and extract logical statements about feature attributions that are consistent across all models with good empirical performance (i.e. all models in the Rashomon Set). We show that partial orders of local/global feature importance arise from this methodology enabling more nuanced interpretations by allowing pairs of features to be incomparable when there is no consensus on their relative importance. We prove that every relation among features present in these partial orders also holds in the rankings provided by existing approaches. Finally, we present three use cases employing hypothesis spaces with tractable Rashomon Sets (Additive models, Kernel Ridge, and Random Forests) and show that partial orders allow one to extract consistent local and global interpretations of models despite their under-specification.