Benchmarking the speed–accuracy tradeoff in object recognition by humans and neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active object recognition, fundamental to tasks like reading and driving, relies on the ability to make time-sensitive decisions. People exhibit a flexible tradeoff between speed and accuracy, a crucial human skill. However, current computational models struggle to incorporate time. To address this gap, we present the first dataset (with 148 observers) exploring the speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) in ImageNet object recognition. Participants performed a 16-way ImageNet categorization task where their responses counted only if they occurred near the time of a fixed-delay beep. Each block of trials allowed one reaction time. As expected, human accuracy increases with reaction time. We compare human performance with that of dynamic neural networks that adapt their computation to the available inference time. Time is a scarce resource for human object recognition, and finding an appropriate analog in neural networks is challenging. Networks can repeat operations by using layers, recurrent cycles, or early exits. We use the repetition count as a network's analog for time. In our analysis, the number of layers, recurrent cycles, and early exits correlates strongly with floating-point operations, making them suitable time analogs. Comparing networks and humans on SAT-fit error, category-wise correlation, and SAT-curve steepness, we find cascaded dynamic neural networks most promising in modeling human speed and accuracy. Surprisingly, convolutional recurrent networks, typically favored in human object recognition modeling, perform the worst on our benchmark.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".