Paper detail

Benchmarking the Robustness of Deep Neural Networks to Common Corruptions in Digital Pathology

When designing a diagnostic model for a clinical application, it is crucial to guarantee the robustness of the model with respect to a wide range of image corruptions. Herein, an easy-to-use benchmark is established to evaluate how deep neural networks perform on corrupted pathology images. Specifically, corrupted images are generated by injecting nine types of common corruptions into validation images. Besides, two classification and one ranking metrics are designed to evaluate the prediction and confidence performance under corruption. Evaluated on two resulting benchmark datasets, we find that (1) a variety of deep neural network models suffer from a significant accuracy decrease (double the error on clean images) and the unreliable confidence estimation on corrupted images; (2) A low correlation between the validation and test errors while replacing the validation set with our benchmark can increase the correlation. Our codes are available on https://github.com/superjamessyx/robustness_benchmark.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.