An open secret in contemporary machine learning is that many models work beautifully on standard benchmarks but fail to generalize outside the lab. This has been attributed to training on biased data, which provide poor coverage over real world events. Generative models are no exception, but recent advances in generative adversarial networks (GANs) suggest otherwise -- these models can now synthesize strikingly realistic and diverse images. Is generative modeling of photos a solved problem? We show that although current GANs can fit standard datasets very well, they still fall short of being comprehensive models of the visual manifold. In particular, we study their ability to fit simple transformations such as camera movements and color changes. We find that the models reflect the biases of the datasets on which they are trained (e.g., centered objects), but that they also exhibit some capacity for generalization: by "steering" in latent space, we can shift the distribution while still creating realistic images. We hypothesize that the degree of distributional shift is related to the breadth of the training data distribution, and conduct experiments that demonstrate this. Code is released on our project page: this https URL
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are commonly thought to recognise objects by learning increasingly complex representations of object shapes. Some recent studies suggest a more important role of image textures. We here put these conflicting hypotheses to a quantitative test by evaluating CNNs and human observers on images with a texture-shape cue conflict. We show that ImageNet-trained CNNs are strongly biased towards recognising textures rather than shapes, which is in stark contrast to human behavioural evidence and reveals fundamentally different classification strategies. We then demonstrate that the same standard architecture (ResNet-50) that learns a texture-based representation on ImageNet is able to learn a shape-based representation instead when trained on "Stylized-ImageNet", a stylized version of ImageNet. This provides a much better fit for human behavioural performance in our well-controlled psychophysical lab setting (nine experiments totalling 48,560 psychophysical trials across 97 observers) and comes with a number of unexpected emergent benefits such as improved object detection performance and previously unseen robustness towards a wide range of image distortions, highlighting advantages of a shape-based representation. Deep convolutional network architectures are often assumed to guarantee generalization for small image translations and deformations. In this paper we show that modern CNNs (VGG16, ResNet50, and InceptionResNetV2) can drastically change their output when an image is translated in the image plane by a few pixels, and that this failure of generalization also happens with other realistic small image transformations. Furthermore, the deeper the network the more we see these failures to generalize. We show that these failures are related to the fact that the architecture of modern CNNs ignores the classical sampling theorem so that generalization is not guaranteed. We also show that biases in the statistics of commonly used image datasets makes it unlikely that CNNs will learn to be invariant to these transformations. Taken together our results suggest that the performance of CNNs in object recognition falls far short of the generalization capabilities of humans. Datasets are an integral part of contemporary object recognition research. They have been the chief reason for the considerable progress in the field, not just as source of large amounts of training data, but also as means of measuring and comparing performance of competing algorithms. At the same time, datasets have often been blamed for narrowing the focus of object recognition research, reducing it to a single benchmark performance number. Indeed, some datasets, that started out as data capture efforts aimed at representing the visual world, have become closed worlds unto themselves (e.g. the Corel world, the Caltech-101 world, the PASCAL VOC world). With the focus on beating the latest benchmark numbers on the latest dataset, have we perhaps lost sight of the original purpose? The goal of this paper is to take stock of the current state of recognition datasets. We present a comparison study using a set of popular datasets, evaluated based on a number of criteria including: relative data bias, cross-dataset generalization, effects of closed-world assumption, and sample value. The experimental results, some rather surprising, suggest directions that can improve dataset collection as well as algorithm evaluation protocols. But more broadly, the hope is to stimulate discussion in the community regarding this very important, but largely neglected issue. The concept of visual balance is innate for humans, and influences how we perceive visual aesthetics and cognize harmony. Although visual balance is a vital principle of design and taught in schools of designs, it is barely quantified. On the other hand, with emergence of automantic semi-automatic visual designs for self-publishing, learning visual balance and computationally modeling it, may escalate aesthetics of such designs. In this paper, we present how questing for understanding visual balance inspired us to revisit one of the well-known theories in visual arts, the so called theory of “visual rightness”, elucidated by Arnheim. We define Arnheim’s hypothesis as a design mining problem with the goal of learning visual balance from work of professionals. We collected a dataset of 120K images that are aesthetically highly rated, from a professional photography website. We then computed factors that contribute to visual balance based on the notion of visual saliency. We fitted a mixture of Gaussians to the saliency maps of the images, and obtained the hotspots of the images. Our inferred Gaussians align with Arnheim’s hotspots, and confirm his theory. Moreover, the results support the viability of the center of mass, symmetry, as well as the Rule of Thirds in our dataset. Although human object recognition is supposedly robust to viewpoint, much research on human perception indicates that there is a preferred or "canonical" view of objects. This phenomenon was discovered more than 30 years ago but the canonical view of only a small number of categories has been validated experimentally. Moreover, the explanation for why humans prefer the canonical view over other views remains elusive. In this paper we ask: Can we use Internet image collections to learn more about canonical views? We start by manually finding the most common view in the results returned by Internet search engines when queried with the objects used in psychophysical experiments. Our results clearly show that the most likely view in the search engine corresponds to the same view preferred by human subjects in experiments. We also present a simple method to find the most likely view in an image collection and apply it to hundreds of categories. Using the new data we have collected we present strong evidence against the two most prominent formal theories of canonical views and provide novel constraints for new theories. 