<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-10-17T04:22:09Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:lifeofresearch.com:33" metadataPrefix="oai_datacite">https://lifeofresearch.com/oai2</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:lifeofresearch.com:33</identifier>
        <datestamp>2026-09-22T17:34:54Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>type:article</setSpec>
        <setSpec>openaire</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <resource xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.4/metadata.xsd">
          <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.22123547</identifier>
          <alternateIdentifiers><alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="URL">https://lifeofresearch.com/articles/33</alternateIdentifier></alternateIdentifiers>
          <creators>
            <creator>
              <creatorName>Pranay M. Mahendrakar</creatorName>
              <nameIdentifier nameIdentifierScheme="ORCID" schemeURI="https://orcid.org">0009-0003-7224-029X</nameIdentifier>
              <affiliation>SONYTECH</affiliation>
            </creator>
          </creators>
          <titles><title>Out-of-Distribution With Respect to What? Four Referents Behind One Predicate, and Why OOD Detection Results Do Not Transfer to Foundation-Model Reasoning</title></titles>
          <publisher>Life of Research</publisher>
          <publicationYear>2026</publicationYear>
          <subjects>
            <subject>out-of-distribution detection</subject>
            <subject>distribution shift</subject>
            <subject>foundation models</subject>
            <subject>membership inference</subject>
            <subject>construct validity</subject>
            <subject>chain-of-thought reasoning</subject>
            <subject>uncertainty estimation</subject>
            <subject>evaluation</subject>
          </subjects>
          <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="JournalArticle">Journal article</resourceType>
          <rightsList><rights rightsURI="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0</rights></rightsList>
          <descriptions><description descriptionType="Abstract">(c) 2026 Pranay Mahendrakar. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Out-of-distribution detection was formalised for a setting in which the training distribution is known, the label space is closed, and a designated test set stands in for everything outside it. Foundation models satisfy none of those conditions, and yet a growing body of work reports out-of-distribution detection for large language models using perplexity, hidden-state distance or learned probes, and a parallel body of work reports that chain-of-thought reasoning degrades sharply under distribution shift. This paper argues that &quot;out of distribution&quot; carries at least four distinct referents in that literature - membership in the pretraining corpus, novelty of the semantic class, distance from a designated reference dataset, and impending model error - and that results are routinely obtained against one referent and read as though they held for another. The separation is not a matter of taste. For the membership referent, the published record contains a direct negative result: membership inference and contamination detection on pretraining data perform at or near chance, and the evaluations that appeared to show otherwise were measuring distribution shift between the member and non-member samples rather than membership. That makes the referent most often invoked in informal discussion the one with no working operational test, which in turn means the claim that a reasoning failure occurred &quot;outside the training distribution&quot; is currently untestable in that sense for any model whose corpus is undisclosed. Nine studies that would settle the open parts are named, four of them runnable today on open-corpus model suites. No experiments are reported here, and the case against this paper&apos;s own position is stated in full.
The literature search, drafting and citation verification for this paper were carried out with AI assistance under the author&apos;s direction. Every citation was machine-verified against the arXiv API and Crossref before inclusion, and every quantitative claim was read back against the cited source&apos;s own text. The author is responsible for the final text and for all claims made in it.</description></descriptions>
        </resource>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>