The Cells Out of Sample (COOS) dataset and benchmarks for measuring out-of-sample generalization of image classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding if classifiers generalize to out-of-sample datasets is a central problem in machine learning. Microscopy images provide a standardized way to measure the generalization capacity of image classifiers, as we can image the same classes of objects under increasingly divergent, but controlled factors of variation. We created a public dataset of 132,209 images of mouse cells, COOS-7 (Cells Out Of Sample 7-Class). COOS-7 provides a classification setting where four test datasets have increasing degrees of covariate shift: some images are random subsets of the training data, while others are from experiments reproduced months later and imaged by different instruments. We benchmarked a range of classification models using different representations, including transferred neural network features, end-to-end classification with a supervised deep CNN, and features from a self-supervised CNN. While most classifiers perform well on test datasets similar to the training dataset, all classifiers failed to generalize their performance to datasets with greater covariate shifts. These baselines highlight the challenges of covariate shifts in image data, and establish metrics for improving the generalization capacity of image classifiers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".