CVAILGNov 29, 2022

Finding Differences Between Transformers and ConvNets Using Counterfactual Simulation Testing

arXiv:2211.16499v19 citationsh-index: 79
Originality Synthesis-oriented
AI Analysis

This addresses the challenge of assessing robustness in deep neural networks for computer vision researchers, though it is incremental as it applies existing methods to new synthetic data.

The paper tackles the problem of evaluating neural network robustness to naturalistic variations like object pose and occlusion by introducing Counterfactual Simulation Testing, a framework using synthetic scenes to ask counterfactual questions, and finds that ConvNext is more robust to pose and scale variations than Swin, while Swin handles occlusion better, with robustness improving with network and data scale.

Modern deep neural networks tend to be evaluated on static test sets. One shortcoming of this is the fact that these deep neural networks cannot be easily evaluated for robustness issues with respect to specific scene variations. For example, it is hard to study the robustness of these networks to variations of object scale, object pose, scene lighting and 3D occlusions. The main reason is that collecting real datasets with fine-grained naturalistic variations of sufficient scale can be extremely time-consuming and expensive. In this work, we present Counterfactual Simulation Testing, a counterfactual framework that allows us to study the robustness of neural networks with respect to some of these naturalistic variations by building realistic synthetic scenes that allow us to ask counterfactual questions to the models, ultimately providing answers to questions such as "Would your classification still be correct if the object were viewed from the top?" or "Would your classification still be correct if the object were partially occluded by another object?". Our method allows for a fair comparison of the robustness of recently released, state-of-the-art Convolutional Neural Networks and Vision Transformers, with respect to these naturalistic variations. We find evidence that ConvNext is more robust to pose and scale variations than Swin, that ConvNext generalizes better to our simulated domain and that Swin handles partial occlusion better than ConvNext. We also find that robustness for all networks improves with network scale and with data scale and variety. We release the Naturalistic Variation Object Dataset (NVD), a large simulated dataset of 272k images of everyday objects with naturalistic variations such as object pose, scale, viewpoint, lighting and occlusions. Project page: https://counterfactualsimulation.github.io

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes