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_5: We try to determine the progress made by convolutional neural networks over the past 25 years in classifying images into abstractc lasses. For this purpose we compare the performance of LeNet to that of GoogLeNet at classifying randomly generated images which are differentiated by an abstract property (e.g., one class contains two objects of the same size, the other class two objects of different sizes). Our results show that there is still work to do in order to solve vision problems humans are able to solve without much difficulty.
  @cite_6: Automated scene interpretation has benefited from advances in machine learning, and restricted tasks, such as face detection, have been solved with sufficient accuracy for restricted settings. However, the performance of machines in providing rich semantic descriptions of natural scenes from digital images remains highly limited and hugely inferior to that of humans. Here we quantify this “semantic gap” in a particular setting: We compare the efficiency of human and machine learning in assigning an image to one of two categories determined by the spatial arrangement of constituent parts. The images are not real, but the category-defining rules reflect the compositional structure of real images and the type of “reasoning” that appears to be necessary for semantic parsing. Experiments demonstrate that human subjects grasp the separating principles from a handful of examples, whereas the error rates of computer programs fluctuate wildly and remain far behind that of humans even after exposure to thousands of examples. These observations lend support to current trends in computer vision such as integrating machine learning with parts-based modeling.
summary: Fleuret al @cite_6 test human and computer performance on a range of synthetic classification tasks. The tasks are binary classification experiments on synthetic images where the difference between the two classes is determined by the spatial arrangement of the constituent parts. Even though these tasks are simple, machine performance is still well below human performance. Stabinger al @cite_5 test modern deep networks on these same classification tasks, but find that the networks can still not achieve human accuracy. While these tests are interesting, the experiments do not represent real data that is likely to occur in most applications.