SWAD: Domain Generalization by Seeking Flat Minima

By Junbum Cha, Sanghyuk Chun, Kyungjae Lee, Han-Cheol Cho, Seunghyun Park, Yunsung Lee, Sungrae Park. 2021

606 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Domain generalization (DG) methods aim to achieve generalizability to an unseen target domain by using only training data from the source domains. Although a variety of DG methods have been proposed, a recent study shows that under a fair evaluation protocol, called DomainBed, the simple empirical risk minimization (ERM) approach works comparable to or even outperforms previous methods. Unfortunately, simply solving ERM on a complex, non-convex loss function can easily lead to sub-optimal generalizability by seeking sharp minima. In this paper, we theoretically show that finding flat minima results in a smaller domain generalization gap. We also propose a simple yet effective method, named Stochastic Weight Averaging Densely (SWAD), to find flat minima. SWAD finds flatter minima and suffers less from overfitting than does the vanilla SWA by a dense and overfit-aware stochastic weight sampling strategy. SWAD shows state-of-the-art performances on five DG benchmarks, namely PACS, VLCS, OfficeHome, TerraIncognita, and DomainNet, with consistent and large margins of +1.6% averagely on out-of-domain accuracy. We also compare SWAD with conventional generalization methods, such as data augmentation and consistency regularization methods, to verify that the remarkable performance improvements are originated from by seeking flat minima, not from better in-domain generalizability. Last but not least, SWAD is readily adaptable to existing DG methods without modification; the combination of SWAD and an existing DG method further improves DG performances. Source code is available at https://github.com/khanrc/swad.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Mechanics, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Representation & Self-Supervised Learning, Optimization & Training

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Yu Qiao
  2. Mohit Bansal
  3. Ziwei Liu
  4. Chen Change Loy
  5. Tao A. Xiang
  6. Jun Zhu
  7. Kaiyang Zhou
  8. Hang Su

In Computational Mechanics

  1. Tao Qin
  2. Yu Qiao
  3. Mohit Bansal
  4. Jun Zhu
  5. Tao A. Xiang
  6. Chen Change Loy
  7. Matt J. Kusner
  8. Hang Su

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  1. Luc Van Gool
  2. Chen Change Loy
  3. Yu Qiao
  4. Dacheng Tao
  5. Xiaogang Wang
  6. Trevor Darrell
  7. Ming-Hsuan Yang
  8. Ziwei Liu

In Representation & Self-Supervised Learning

  1. Ziwei Liu
  2. Kaiyang Zhou
  3. Chen Change Loy
  4. Jun Zhu
  5. Tao A. Xiang
  6. Liyuan Wang
  7. Derek Tam
  8. Peng Cui

In Optimization & Training

  1. Mohit Bansal
  2. Derek Tam
  3. Leshem Choshen
  4. Prateek Yadav
  5. Liyuan Wang
  6. Peng Cui
  7. Tao Qin
  8. Yu Qiao

Citations in the corpus