atlas

Research map / Label-efficient and robust learning / Domain adaptation and generalization

Seeking Consistent Flat Minima for Better Domain Generalization via Refining Loss Landscapes

CVPR 2025 · Label-efficient and robust learning › Domain adaptation and generalization · approach: Optimization-based domain generalization · 3 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes Self-Feedback Training (SFT), which alternates a feedback phase measuring sharpness inconsistency across training domains with a refinement phase that trains a landscape refiner producing soft labels, to find consistent flat minima for domain generalization.

Problem

Domain generalization fails when flat minima found on training domains do not stay flat/low-loss on unseen test domains, because loss landscapes differ across domains.

Approach

Iteratively refines loss landscapes via a learned landscape refiner that outputs dynamic soft labels (projected via a KL-based label-space projection), guided by a feedback signal measuring the difference in loss sharpness between held-out and trained training domains, so the SAM-found minima become consistent across domains.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
replace SAM with SFTResNet-50 · Five DomainBed benchmarks (average)accuracy: 64.5% → 67.1%Helped
replace SAM with SFTViT-B/16 · Five DomainBed benchmarks (average)accuracy: 76.3 → 77.8Helped
replace SAM with SFTViT-L/14 · Five DomainBed benchmarks (average)accuracy: 80.3 → 81.2Helped
add the λ1 sharpness penalty, λ2 consistency penalty, and PCE loss (ablation)SFT with generated labels on OfficeHome · OfficeHomeaccuracy: 85.0 → 86.5Helped
add the λ2 landscape-consistency penalty (ablation)SFT with generated labels and λ1=0.5, without PCE · OfficeHomeaccuracy: 85.6 → 86.0Helped
add the λ1 sharpness penalty (ablation)SFT with generated labels and λ2=0.7, without PCE · OfficeHomeaccuracy: 85.8 → 86.0Helped
add the PCE loss (ablation)SFT with generated labels, λ1=0.5, and λ2=0.7 · OfficeHomeaccuracy: 86.0 → 86.5Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: PACS VLCS OfficeHome TerraIncognita DomainNet

Benchmarks: PACS VLCS OfficeHome TerraIncognita DomainNet

Metrics: out-of-domain accuracy average accuracy

Baselines: ERM SAM GAM GSAM FAD SAGM MIRO SWAD mDSDI IRM CORAL MMD

Builds on: sharpness-aware minimization label smoothing visual prompt tuning DomainBed

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy