Assessing Visually-Continuous Corruption Robustness of Neural Networks Relative to Human Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural Networks (NNs) have surpassed human accuracy in image classification on ImageNet, yet they often lack robustness against image corruption, i.e., corruption robustness, with such robustness being seemingly effortless for human perception. In this paper, we propose visually-continuous corruption robustness (VCR) - an extension of corruption robustness to allow assessing it over the wide and continuous range of changes that correspond to the human perceptive quality (i.e., from the original image to the full distortion of all perceived visual information), along with two novel human-aware metrics for NN evaluation. To compare VCR of NNs with human perception, we conducted extensive experiments on 14 commonly used image corruptions with 7,718 human participants and state-of-the-art robust NN models with different training objectives (e.g., standard, adversarial, corruption robustness), different architectures (e.g., convolution NNs, vision transformers), and different amounts of training data augmentation. Our study showed that: 1) assessing robustness against continuous corruption can reveal insufficient robustness undetected by existing benchmarks; as a result, 2) the gap between NN and human robustness is larger than previously known; and finally, 3) some image corruptions have a similar impact on human perception, offering opportunities for more cost-effective robustness assessments.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".