Why Do Deep Neural Networks Still Not Recognize These Images?:
A Qualitative Analysis on Failure Cases of ImageNet Classification

arXiv:1709.03439v1 [cs.CV] 11 Sep 2017

Han S. Lee, Alex A. Agarwal, and Junmo Kim
School of Electrical Engineering, KAIST

Table 1: Number of cases for each category of failure cases
in ImageNet classification task.

1. Introduction
In a recent decade, ImageNet [2] has become the most
notable and powerful benchmark database in computer vision and machine learning community. With a large number
of natural images and 1000+ annotated classes, ImageNet
has initiated the large scale computer vision era and also
has provided a chance for deep learning (DL) to achieve
its golden age. Since the DL technology has been applied,
the error rates for ImageNet classification task, previously
exceeding 20%, has fallen to 10%. With the recent development of more advanced models such as ResNet [1], DL
has achieved the error rates of 3% in 2016 ImageNet Challenge. With this success, ImageNet’s legacy is evolving eo
apply DL technology into more diverse tasks, such as image
captioning, visual question answering, and gaming.
As ImageNet has emerged as a representative benchmark
for evaluating the performance of novel DL models, its evaluation tends to include only quantitative measures such as
error rate, rather than qualitative analysis. Recent DL models for ImageNet also has focused on how to innovate the
network structure and improve the accuracy while designing a deeper and larger network. Thus, there are few studies
that analyze the failure cases of DL models in ImageNet.In
this abstract, we qualitatively analyze the failure cases of
ImageNet classification results from recent DL model, and
categorize these cases according to the certain image patterns. Through this failure analysis, we believe that it can
be discovered what the final challenges are in ImageNet
database, which the current DL model is still vulnerable to.

Categories
Similar labels (1)
Not salient GT (2)
Challenging images (3)
Incorrect GT (4)
Incorrect PC (5)

# of cases (rates)
61 (15.2%)
87 (21.8%)
43 (10.8%)
79 (19.8%)
130 (32.5%)

400 images randomly selected from these failure cases. On
these failure cases, an observer monitors the entire images
and suggest five categories according to the image characteristics. The five proposed categories and their numbers are
summarized in Table 1. The observer then again assess the
images to classify them into the suggested categories.
Fig. 1 demonstrates some failure case examples with regard to the suggested categories. First, Similar Labels are
the cases where the ground truths (GT) and the predicted
classes (PC) refer to almost similar contents. In this category, PC are not wrong and have the same or similar
meaning to the GT, so that these are more of an evaluation error than a failure. For instance, numerous similar
class words such as “monitor,” ”desktop computer,” “computer keyboard,” and ”notebook” which are all related to the
computers on the desk, appear duplicated in the images in
the first row of Fig. 1. In order to handle with these failure
cases, the evaluation policy should be revised to correctly
evaluate the classification of similar semantic classes, from
the database perspective. Moreover, from the DL model perspective, it is necessary to improve the model to consider the
inter-class similarity, so that when some classes obtain high
prediction weights, their similar classes also do.
Second, Not Salient GT are the cases where it is hard to
say that PC is incorrect because GT is not salient in the image. As shown in the second row of Fig. 1, cases were found
in which GT exists in the images but not are salient, and PC
also exists and sometimes even are salient. These cases are
considered to be supplemented by revising the GT of the
database or improving the evaluation policy to include mul-

2. Experiments and Results
To analyze the failure cases of ImageNet classification
task, we propose and implement the DL model which can
achieve state-of-the-art level classification error. Our DL
model is an ensemble of five DL models, including three
200-layered ResNet [1] and one Inception [3] and one InceptionResNet. The model achieved the classification error
rate of 3.29% in the ImageNet object classification and localization task. We then collect the failure cases from the
validation set of ImageNet database to qualitatively analyze
1

tiple GT. Third, Challenging Images refer to the images that
are particularly difficult to predict the objects even by humans. The bacon-like bandage from the third row in Fig. 1
is quite difficult to recognize even by human observer without the contextual knowledge. Alternatives are not considered because we believe it can be solved by increasing the
learning complexity of DL, which is beyond the scope of
this abstract.
Fourth, Incorrect GT refer to the cases where GT is simply wrong. Surprisingly, almost 20% of the failure cases
were caused by incorrect GT, such as annotating flute as
oboe or spider as tick, as in fourth row of Fig. 1. One interesting fact is that the majority of animal-related images
in the failure cases fall into this category, which can lead
to the conclusion that the performance of DL overwhelms
that of humans in the animal classification task. This incorrect GT issue should be complemented by the strict revision
of GT in the database. Finally, Incorrect PC are the cases
where PC is wrong. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th categories are the
cases in which the PC actually performed the classification
correctly. In this sense, the 3rd and 5th, especially 5th category, can be seen as a clear failure of the DL in ImageNet
classification. However, As seen in the 5th row of Fig. 1,
the images in the most of the category is out of its regular
range of imaging distribution, with the distortion of illumination and motion blur. In order to classify these correctly,
DL can be improved by training distorted images in which
the regular training images are modified by these irregular
illumincation and motion blur.
In this abstract, we collected the failure cases of the recent DL model in ImageNet database, categorized them into
case-by-case via qualitative analysis, and discussed their
problems and alternatives. It is expected that our work will
allow DL researchers to discover the remaining challenges
when applying DL to various large scale image classification databases, not only ImageNet, and also allow database
coordinators to know what points to keep in mind when
building new databases. Future works include the further
analysis on these categorized failure cases and improving
DL by considering the above challenges such as inter-class
similarity and training distorted images.

References
[1] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning
for image recognition. CoRR, abs/1512.03385, 2015. 1
[2] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma,
Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg,
and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition
Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV),
115(3):211–252, 2015. 1
[3] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. E. Reed,
D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich.
Going deeper with convolutions. CoRR, abs/1409.4842, 2014.
1

Figure 1: Example images and their GT (red) and PC (blue)
of ImageNet failure cases. Each row includes the cases of
one category from; (1) Similar labels, (2) not salient GT,
(3) challenging images, (4) incorrect GT, and (5) incorrect
PC. (from the top row)

