arXiv:2606.08123v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Model selection for safety-relevant visual recognition is often based on clean aggregate performance, although robustness, transfer, embedded latency, and explanation faithfulness may produce different preferences. This study presents a Human-Centered Benchmarking Framework (HCBF) that separates multidimensional evidence from non-compensatory operational eligibility. Six compact convolutional and transformer-oriented eye-state recognition models were evaluated using a subject-disjoint MRL Eye protocol, deterministic image corruptions, zero-shot transfer and participant-safe target-domain training with out-of-fold evaluation on RT-BENE, TensorRT FP32 inference on an NVIDIA Jetson Nano, and black-box RISE faithfulness. Clean MRL Macro-F1 ranged from 0.9566 to 0.9794, whereas zero-shot RT-BENE Macro-F1 ranged from 0.2066 to 0.7771. Matched target-domain effects varied from -0.0406 to 0.4807 and redistributed the two directional errors differently across architectures. Only MobileNetV3-Large and ShuffleNetV2 met the 33.333-ms binocular-pair latency deadline, while neither passed the predefined safety-related screen. The remaining four models failed both requirements, yielding an empty eligible set. Normalized deletion AUC ranged from 0.5826 to 0.9113, while normalized insertion coverage varied from 17.6% to 88.6%. Model ordering changed across clean prediction, corruption robustness, transfer, deployment, faithfulness, and historical score sensitivity. These findings show that relative ranking, multidimensional preference, and operational eligibility are distinct decisions. Deployment-aware benchmarking should preserve directional failures and uncertainty and should allow no model to be selected when mandatory requirements are unmet.
Abstract: Model selection for safety-relevant visual recognition is often based on clean aggregate performance, although robustness, transfer, embedded latency, and explanation faithfulness may produce different preferences. This study presents a Human-Centered Benchmarking Framework (HCBF) that separates multidimensional evidence from non-compensatory operational eligibility. Six compact convolutional and transformer-oriented eye-state recognition models were evaluated using a subject-disjoint MRL Eye protocol, deterministic image corruptions, zero-shot transfer and participant-safe target-domain training with out-of-fold evaluation on RT-BENE, TensorRT FP32 inference on an NVIDIA Jetson Nano, and black-box RISE faithfulness. Clean MRL Macro-F1 ranged from 0.9566 to 0.9794, whereas zero-shot RT-BENE Macro-F1 ranged from 0.2066 to 0.7771. Matched target-domain effects varied from -0.0406 to 0.4807 and redistributed the two directional errors differently across architectures. Only MobileNetV3-Large and ShuffleNetV2 met the 33.333-ms binocular-pair latency deadline, while neither passed the predefined safety-related screen. The remaining four models failed both requirements, yielding an empty eligible set. Normalized deletion AUC ranged from 0.5826 to 0.9113, while normalized insertion coverage varied from 17.6% to 88.6%. Model ordering changed across clean prediction, corruption robustness, transfer, deployment, faithfulness, and historical score sensitivity. These findings show that relative ranking, multidimensional preference, and operational eligibility are distinct decisions. Deployment-aware benchmarking should preserve directional failures and uncertainty and should allow no model to be selected when mandatory requirements are unmet.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: