Shape and Texture: What Influences Reliable Optical Flow Estimation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent methods have made significant progress in optical flow estimation. However, the evaluation of these methods focuses mainly on improved accuracy in benchmarks and often overlooks the analysis of network robustness, which may be important in safety-critical scenarios such as autonomous driving. In this paper, we propose a novel method for robustness evaluation by modifying data from original benchmarks. Unlike previous benchmarks that focus on complex scenes, we propose to modify shape and texture of objects from the original images in order to analyze the sensitivity to these changes observed in the output. Our aim is to identify common failure cases of state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods to evaluate their robustness and understand their behaviors. We show that: Optical flow methods are more sensitive to shape changes than to texture changes; and optical flow methods tend to "remember" objects seen during training and may "ignore" the motion of unseen objects. Our experimental results and findings provide a more in-depth understanding of the behavior of recent optical flow methods. (See https://github.com/llesky/Robustness-Analysis-Optical-Flow).
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 | 0.005 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".