mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Image-Scale Robustness and Visual Recognition Performance: A Cross-Architecture Analysis

arXiv 2609.06051 ↗First posted 5 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The sensitivity of visual recognition models to changes in image scale is well established, yet the factors governing this sensitivity across heterogeneous architectures remain unclear. In this work, we investigate whether scale robustness exhibits a common quantitative structure across modern vision models. We evaluate 20 pretrained ImageNet-1K classifiers spanning seven architectural families, including convolutional, mobile, efficient, and Transformer-based architectures. By systematically reducing input image scale, we construct scale-accuracy response curves and define a characteristic scale as a compact measure of the onset of substantial recognition degradation. We then examine the relationship between characteristic scale and baseline recognition accuracy, model parameter count, architectural family, and representation stability. A strong inverse association is observed between baseline accuracy and characteristic scale (Pearson r = -0.890, R^2= 0.792, p < 10^-6). This relationship remains stable under bootstrap resampling, leave-one-architecture-out analysis, and leave-one-family-out analysis. In contrast, parameter count provides negligible additional explanatory power after controlling for baseline accuracy (p = 0.80), while architectural family does not provide significant incremental explanatory power. Furthermore, characteristic scale shows essentially no association with representation stability (r = -0.003, p = 0.991). These results indicate that, across the studied models, scale robustness is strongly organized by baseline recognition performance rather than simply by model size, architectural family, or representation stability. The study provides an empirical framework for characterizing scale robustness across vision architectures and identifies a reproducible accuracy-scale regularity that warrants further theoretical investigation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 14 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,139
  4. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
  5. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,442
  6. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,795
  7. 2019Searching for MobileNetV3cited by 1,994
  8. 2021Going deeper with Image Transformerscited by 764
  9. 2021Understanding Robustness of Transformers for Image Classificationcited by 249
  10. 2018Why do deep convolutional networks generalize so poorly to small image transformations?cited by 198
  11. 2020On Robustness and Transferability of Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 98
  12. 2014Locally Scale-Invariant Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 34
1 more
  1. 2017A Novel Weight-Shared Multi-Stage CNN for Scale Robustnesscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.