Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37022698›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

When will AI misclassify? Intuiting failures on natural images.

Makaela Nartker, Zhenglong Zhou, Chaz Firestone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Makaela NartkerDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Zhenglong ZhouDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Chaz FirestoneDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine recognition systems now rival humans in their ability to classify natural images. However, their success is accompanied by a striking failure: a tendency to commit bizarre misclassifications on inputs specifically selected to fool them. What do ordinary people know about the nature and prevalence of such classification errors? Here, five experiments exploit the recent discovery of "natural adversarial examples" to ask whether naive observers can predict when and how machines will misclassify natural images. Whereas classical adversarial examples are inputs that have been minimally perturbed to induce misclassifications, natural adversarial examples are simply unmodified natural photographs that consistently fool a wide variety of machine recognition systems. For example, a bird casting a shadow might be misclassified as a sundial, or a beach umbrella made of straw might be misclassified as a broom. In Experiment 1, subjects accurately predicted which natural images machines would misclassify and which they would not. Experiments 2 through 4 extended this ability to how the images would be misclassified, showing that anticipating machine misclassifications goes beyond merely identifying an image as nonprototypical. Finally, Experiment 5 replicated these findings under more ecologically valid conditions, demonstrating that subjects can anticipate misclassifications not only under two-alternative forced-choice conditions (as in Experiments 1-4), but also when the images appear one at a time in a continuous stream-a skill that may be of value to human-machine teams. We suggest that ordinary people can intuit how easy or hard a natural image is to classify, and we discuss the implications of these results for practical and theoretical issues at the interface of biological and artificial vision.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedHumans

Identifiers

PMID37022698
PMCPMC10082388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.