November 21, 2019
Although the popular MNIST dataset [LeCun et al., 1994] is derived from the NIST database [Grother and Hanaoka, 1995], the precise processing steps for this derivation have been lost to time. We propose a reconstruction that is accurate enough to serve as a replacement for the MNIST dataset, with insignificant changes in accuracy. We trace each MNIST digit to its NIST source and its rich metadata such as writer identifier, partition identifier, etc. We also reconstruct the complete MNIST test set with 60,000 samples instead of the usual 10,000. Since the balance 50,000 were never distributed, they can be used to investigate the impact of twenty-five years of MNIST experiments on the reported testing performances. Our limited results unambiguously confirm the trends observed by Recht et al. [2018, 2019]: although the misclassification rates are slightly off, classifier ordering and model selection remain broadly reliable. We attribute this phenomenon to the pairing benefits of comparing classifiers on the same digits. In practice, this suggests that a shifting data distribution is far more dangerous than overusing an adequately distributed testing set.
April 18, 2024
Jonas Kohler, Albert Pumarola, Edgar Schoenfeld, Artsiom Sanakoyeu, Roshan Sumbaly, Peter Vajda, Ali Thabet
April 18, 2024
March 20, 2024
Armen Avetisyan, Chris Xie, Henry Howard-Jenkins, Tsun-Yi Yang, Samir Aroudj, Suvam Patra, Fuyang Zhang, Duncan Frost, Luke Holland, Campbell Orme, Jakob Julian Engel, Edward Miller, Richard Newcombe, Vasileios Balntas
March 20, 2024
February 13, 2024
Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Iro Laina, Christian Rupprecht, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, Oran Gafni, Filippos Kokkinos
February 13, 2024
January 25, 2024
Felix Xu, Di Lin, Jianjun Zhao, Jianlang Chen, Lei Ma, Qing Guo, Wei Feng, Xuhong Ren
January 25, 2024
Product experiences
Foundational models
Product experiences
Latest news
Foundational models