Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

From ImageNet to Image Classification: Contextualizing Progress on Benchmarks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2005.11295 v1 pith:6EW7YS4C submitted 2020-05-22 cs.CV cs.LGstat.ML

classification cs.CVcs.LGstat.ML
keywords imagenetpipelinecollectiondataresultingaccountanalysisannotations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Building rich machine learning datasets in a scalable manner often necessitates a crowd-sourced data collection pipeline. In this work, we use human studies to investigate the consequences of employing such a pipeline, focusing on the popular ImageNet dataset. We study how specific design choices in the ImageNet creation process impact the fidelity of the resulting dataset---including the introduction of biases that state-of-the-art models exploit. Our analysis pinpoints how a noisy data collection pipeline can lead to a systematic misalignment between the resulting benchmark and the real-world task it serves as a proxy for. Finally, our findings emphasize the need to augment our current model training and evaluation toolkit to take such misalignments into account. To facilitate further research, we release our refined ImageNet annotations at https://github.com/MadryLab/ImageNetMultiLabel.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Image Recognition with Vision and Language Embeddings of VLMs

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmark of dual-encoder VLMs finds text and image embeddings give complementary class accuracy, and a per-class precision fusion rule adds about 0.4% accuracy over either alone on ImageNet.

  2. Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.

Pith tools