Papers › Are Synthetic Corruptions A Reliable Proxy For Real-World Corruptions?

Are Synthetic Corruptions A Reliable Proxy For Real-World Corruptions?

7 May 2025arXiv:2505.04835archive 2025-07-28

Shashank Agnihotri, David Schader, Nico Sharei, Mehmet Ege Kaçar, Margret Keuper

Deep learning (DL) models are widely used in real-world applications but remain vulnerable to distribution shifts, especially due to weather and lighting changes. Collecting diverse real-world data for testing the robustness of DL models is resource-intensive, making synthetic corruptions an attractive alternative for robustness testing. However, are synthetic corruptions a reliable proxy for real-world corruptions? To answer this, we conduct the largest benchmarking study on semantic segmentation models, comparing performance on real-world corruptions and synthetic corruptions datasets. Our results reveal a strong correlation in mean performance, supporting the use of synthetic corruptions for robustness evaluation. We further analyze corruption-specific correlations, providing key insights to understand when synthetic corruptions succeed in representing real-world corruptions. Open-source Code: https://github.com/shashankskagnihotri/benchmarking_robustness/tree/segmentation_david/semantic_segmentation

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

shashankskagnihotri/benchmarking_robustness officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

BenchmarkingSemantic Segmentation

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections