analiza aiqbench
This study applies functional ANOVA to dissect performance variability in deep learning models across remote sensing datasets, revealing how specific design choices like architecture and initialization interact based on data scale and complexity. By moving beyond static benchmark rankings, the research provides a systematic framework for understanding dataset sensitivity profiles that can guide more robust model selection strategies.
Design Choices That Matter: A Functional ANOVA Analysis for Remote Sensing Multi-Label Classification
arXiv:2608.04702v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarking deep learning (DL) models for multi-label classification (MLC) of remote sensing images (RSI) typically yields rankings that do not generalize beyond the evaluated datasets. In this work, we move beyond rankings by employing functional analysis of variance (fANOVA) to systematically quantify the contributions of individual design choices and their interactions to performance variability. We conduct two empirical analyses covering 48 and 20 DL models, respectively, spanning design choices such as network architecture, fine-tuning strategy, learning strategy, and initialization. By applying fANOVA across seven MLC RSI datasets, we construct dataset meta-representations that capture design-choice sensitivity profiles. Hierarchical clustering of these meta-representations reveals that datasets naturally group according to how they respond to design decisions, with patterns strongly linked to intrinsic dataset properties such as scale, spatial resolution, and label space complexity. Our findings show that for large-scale datasets, fine-tuning strategy and architecture are dominant factors, while in data-limited regimes, initialization becomes decisive. For intermediate regimes, the interaction between architecture and learning strategy governs performance.
Abstract:Benchmarking deep learning (DL) models for multi-label classification (MLC) of remote sensing images (RSI) typically yields rankings that do not generalize beyond the evaluated datasets. In this work, we move beyond rankings by employing functional analysis of variance (fANOVA) to systematically quantify the contributions of individual design choices and their interactions to performance variability. We conduct two empirical analyses covering 48 and 20 DL models, respectively, spanning design choices such as network architecture, fine-tuning strategy, learning strategy, and initialization. By applying fANOVA across seven MLC RSI datasets, we construct dataset meta-representations that capture design-choice sensitivity profiles. Hierarchical clustering of these meta-representations reveals that datasets naturally group according to how they respond to design decisions, with patterns strongly linked to intrinsic dataset properties such as scale, spatial resolution, and label space complexity. Our findings show that for large-scale datasets, fine-tuning strategy and architecture are dominant factors, while in data-limited regimes, initialization becomes decisive. For intermediate regimes, the interaction between architecture and learning strategy governs performance.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2608.04702 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.04702v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.04702 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 267 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026