text: Deep neural networks (DNNs) achieve excellent performance on standard classification tasks. However, under image quality distortions such as blur and noise, classification accuracy becomes poor. In this work, we compare the performance of DNNs with human subjects on distorted images. We show that, although DNNs perform better than or on par with humans on good quality images, DNN performance is still much lower than human performance on distorted images. We additionally find that there is little correlation in errors between DNNs and human subjects. This could be an indication that the internal representation of images are different between DNNs and the human visual system. These comparisons with human performance could be used to guide future development of more robust DNNs.
  @cite_7: Several decades of research in computer and primate vision have resulted in many models (some specialized for one problem, others more general) and invaluable experimental data. Here, to help focus research efforts onto the hardest unsolved problems, and bridge computer and human vision, we define a battery of 5 tests that measure the gap between human and machine performances in several dimensions (generalization across scene categories, generalization from images to edge maps and line drawings, invariance to rotation and scaling, local global information with jumbled images, and object recognition performance). We measure model accuracy and the correlation between model and human error patterns. Experimenting over 7 datasets, where human data is available, and gauging 14 well-established models, we find that none fully resembles humans in all aspects, and we learn from each test which models and features are more promising in approaching humans in the tested dimension. Across all tests, we find that models based on local edge histograms consistently resemble humans more, while several scene statistics or "gist" models do perform well with both scenes and objects. While computer vision has long been inspired by human vision, we believe systematic efforts, such as this, will help better identify shortcomings of models and find new paths forward.
summary: Comparing the performance of machine learning systems with human subjects has attracted interest because it may give insights on how machine learning systems can be improved. Borji and Itti @cite_7 compare human classification accuracy and the accuracy of several machine learning algorithms on several datasets. The study considers images as well as line drawings and jumbled images. The study, however, does not test distorted images, and does not include deep learning algorithms.