Robustness Assessment of AI-Based 2D Object Detection Systems: A Method and Lessons Learned from Two Industrial Cases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability of AI-based object detection models has gained interest with their increasing use in safety-critical systems and the development of new regulations on artificial intelligence. To meet the need for robustness evaluation, several authors have proposed methods for testing these models. However, applying these methods in industrial settings can be difficult, and several challenges have been identified in practice in the design and execution of tests. There is, therefore, a need for clear guidelines for practitioners. In this paper, we propose a method and guidelines for assessing the robustness of AI-based 2D object detection systems, based on the Goal Question Metric approach. The method defines the overall robustness testing process and a set of recommended metrics to be used at each stage of the process. We developed and evaluated the method through action research cycles, based on two industrial cases and feedback from practitioners. Thus, the resulting method addresses issues encountered in practice. A qualitative evaluation of the method by practitioners was also conducted to provide insights that can guide future research on the subject.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it