mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Automated Classification of Model Errors on ImageNet

arXiv 2401.02430 ↗First posted 13 Nov 2023cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While the ImageNet dataset has been driving computer vision research over the past decade, significant label noise and ambiguity have made top-1 accuracy an insufficient measure of further progress. To address this, new label-sets and evaluation protocols have been proposed for ImageNet showing that state-of-the-art models already achieve over 95% accuracy and shifting the focus on investigating why the remaining errors persist. Recent work in this direction employed a panel of experts to manually categorize all remaining classification errors for two selected models. However, this process is time-consuming, prone to inconsistencies, and requires trained experts, making it unsuitable for regular model evaluation thus limiting its utility. To overcome these limitations, we propose the first automated error classification framework, a valuable tool to study how modeling choices affect error distributions. We use our framework to comprehensively evaluate the error distribution of over 900 models. Perhaps surprisingly, we find that across model architectures, scales, and pre-training corpora, top-1 accuracy is a strong predictor for the portion of all error types. In particular, we observe that the portion of severe errors drops significantly with top-1 accuracy indicating that, while it underreports a model's true performance, it remains a valuable performance metric. We release all our code at https://github.com/eth-sri/automated-error-analysis .

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2023.

Builds on

16 of 35 references.

References · 16

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  4. 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 388
  5. 2020Are we done with ImageNet?cited by 329
  6. 2021Salient ImageNet: How to discover spurious features in Deep Learning?cited by 114
  7. 2020From ImageNet to Image Classification: Contextualizing Progress on Benchmarkscited by 90
  8. 2020Beyond accuracy: quantifying trial-by-trial behaviour of CNNs and humans by measuring error consistencycited by 77
  9. 2021The Evolution of Out-of-Distribution Robustness Throughout Fine-Tuningcited by 74
  10. 2022When does dough become a bagel? Analyzing the remaining mistakes on ImageNetcited by 60
  11. 2021No One Representation to Rule Them All: Overlapping Features of Training Methodscited by 57
  12. 2022ImageNet-X: Understanding Model Mistakes with Factor of Variation Annotationscited by 44
4 more
  1. 2022Spurious Features Everywhere -- Large-Scale Detection of Harmful Spurious Features in ImageNetcited by 41
  2. 2023ImageNet-Hard: The Hardest Images Remaining from a Study of the Power of Zoom and Spatial Biases in Image Classificationcited by 33
  3. 2020Why do classifier accuracies show linear trends under distribution shift?cited by 21
  4. 2017Why Do Deep Neural Networks Still Not Recognize These Images?: A Qualitative Analysis on Failure Cases of ImageNet Classificationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 3.

6 papers.