ArticleScientific reports2026
Measuring deep learning performance - an empirical study of performance distributions across architectures and tasks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-determinism in deep learning algorithm design and implementation leads to performance variation, meaning model performance is not a single value, but rather a distribution. These model performance distributions are underexplored despite their impact on robustness. We investigate the robustness of deep learning performance to sources of non-determinism, specifically focusing on how performance distributions differ across various architectures and tasks. We conducted 186 experiments on state-of-the-art image classification (ResNet, ViT) and time series forecasting (Autoformer, iTransformer, NLinear, TSMixer) architectures. Each experiment was run 100 times with different random seeds to generate performance distributions, resulting in 18,600 runs. Robustness was quantified using metrics for spread, symmetry, and tail risk. Performance distributions are frequently non-Gaussian, particularly in time series forecasting. Model size does not systematically affect robustness - larger image classification models show fewer outliers but not lower spread, while smaller time series models show lower spread but more extreme underperformers. Training duration does not scale linearly; early stopping effectively balances performance and robustness. Mean performance does not predict robustness - time series forecasting shows moderate correlation while image classification shows none. Time series models produce nearly three times more underperforming outliers than image classification models, indicating substantially higher tail risk. Tail risk poses serious concerns for Trustworthy AI in high-stakes applications. Models performing well on average may exhibit long tails and extreme outliers revealed only through distributional analysis. Mean performance alone should not guide model selection; assessment of spread, symmetry, and tail risk is essential for reliable model assessment where consistent performance is critical.
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.