ConvNet vs Transformer, Supervised vs CLIP: Beyond ImageNet Accuracy

Overview

• Modern computer vision offers a variety of models to choose from, but selecting the right one for specific applications can be challenging.
• Traditionally, models are compared by their classification accuracy on the ImageNet dataset, but this single metric does not fully capture all the nuances in model performance.
• This paper conducts an in-depth comparative analysis of model behaviors beyond just ImageNet accuracy, looking at both ConvNet and Vision Transformer architectures, and models trained using both supervised and CLIP training.

Plain English Explanation

When it comes to computer vision, researchers and practitioners have access to a wide range of machine learning models to choose from. However, selecting the right model for a specific application can be challenging, as the models can differ in many ways.

Traditionally, the standard way to compare these models has been to look at their classification accuracy on the ImageNet dataset, a commonly used benchmark. But this single metric doesn't tell the whole story - there are many other important factors to consider, such as the types of mistakes the models make, how well-calibrated their outputs are, how easily the models can be applied to new tasks, and how invariant their features are to certain changes.

In this study, the researchers conducted a deep dive into comparing the behaviors of various ConvNet and Vision Transformer models, looking at both those trained using standard supervised techniques and those trained using the CLIP approach. Even though the models had similar ImageNet accuracies and computational requirements, the researchers found significant differences across these other key metrics.

Technical Explanation

The researchers in this paper performed an extensive comparative analysis of various computer vision models, going beyond just looking at their ImageNet classification accuracy.

They examined both ConvNet and Vision Transformer architectures, and compared models that were trained using both standard supervised techniques as well as the CLIP training approach. Despite the models having similar ImageNet accuracies and compute requirements, the researchers found that they differed significantly across a range of other important metrics.

These additional factors included the types of mistakes the models made, how well-calibrated their output probabilities were, how transferable their learned features were to new tasks, and how invariant those features were to certain transformations. The diversity in model characteristics across these various dimensions highlights the need for a more nuanced analysis when choosing which model to use for a particular application, rather than just relying on the standard ImageNet accuracy metric.

The researchers have made their code publicly available to facilitate further exploration and analysis of these model behaviors.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case that relying solely on ImageNet classification accuracy is an incomplete way to evaluate and select computer vision models for practical applications. The in-depth comparative analysis reveals important nuances in model behaviors that are not captured by this single metric.

One limitation of the study is that it focuses on a relatively small set of model architectures and training approaches. There are many other models and techniques out there that could exhibit different strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the underlying reasons why the models exhibit the observed differences in behavior.

Further research could explore a wider range of models, investigate the causal factors behind the behavioral differences, and study how these findings translate to real-world computer vision tasks beyond just ImageNet classification. Nonetheless, this paper highlights the value of a more comprehensive model evaluation framework that goes beyond a single benchmark score.

Conclusion

This research paper makes a strong case that the standard practice of comparing computer vision models based solely on their ImageNet classification accuracy is insufficient. The in-depth analysis reveals that even models with similar ImageNet performance can differ significantly in other important aspects, such as output calibration, feature transferability, and invariance to transformations.

By expanding the scope of model evaluation beyond a single metric, this work underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to selecting the right model for a given computer vision application. The insights from this study can help researchers and practitioners make more informed decisions when choosing among the growing variety of models available in the field of computer vision.