Analyzing Out-of-Domain Generalization Performance of Pre-Trained Segmentation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artists illustrate objects to various degrees of complexity. As the amount of detail or the similarity to reality of a depiction decreases, the object tends to be reduced to its simplest, most relevant higher-level features (Harrison, 1981). One of the reasons Deep Neural Networks (DNN) may fail to identify objects in an image is that models are unable to recognize the order of importance of features such as shape, depth, or color within an image, which means even the most minute distortions of pixels within an image that would be imperceptible to humans would greatly impact the performance of the object detection models (Eykholt et al., 2018). However, by training DNN on artworks where the most prominent features defining specific objects are emphasized, perhaps a model can be made to be more resilient against small-scale changes in an image. In this paper, the correlation between the level of similarity to reality of images and artworks of an object and the accuracy of object detection models is investigated to test the ability of object detection models in identifying the most salient features of a particular object. The results of this report can help outline the efficacy of models only trained on real images in identifying increasingly abstract artworks that have simplified an object to its most prominent features. The experiment shows that the accuracies of models decrease as the images or illustrations provided become more abstract or simplified, which suggests the higher level features that identify a particular object are different in object detection models and humans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".