ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Empirical Evaluation of Invariances in Deep Vision Models.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability of deep learning models to maintain consistent performance under image transformations-termed invariances, is critical for reliable deployment across diverse computer vision applications. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of modern convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and vision transformers (ViTs) concerning four fundamental types of image invariances: blur, noise, rotation, and scale. We analyze a curated selection of thirty models across three common vision tasks, object localization, recognition, and semantic segmentation, using benchmark datasets including COCO, ImageNet, and a custom segmentation dataset. Our experimental protocol introduces controlled perturbations to test model robustness and employs task-specific metrics such as mean Intersection over Union (mIoU), and classification accuracy (Acc) to quantify models' performance degradation. Results indicate that while ViTs generally outperform CNNs under blur and noise corruption in recognition tasks, both model families exhibit significant vulnerabilities to rotation and extreme scale transformations. Notably, segmentation models demonstrate higher resilience to geometric variations, with SegFormer and Mask2Former emerging as the most robust architectures. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions regarding model robustness and provide actionable insights for designing vision systems capable of withstanding real-world input variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.