Humans outperform object recognizers despite the fact that models perform well on current datasets, including those explicitly designed to challenge machines with debiased images or distribution shift. This problem persists, in part, because we have no guidance on the absolute difficulty of an image or dataset making it hard to objectively assess progress toward human-level performance, to cover the range of human abilities, and to increase the challenge posed by a dataset. We develop a dataset difficulty metric MVT, Minimum Viewing Time, that addresses these three problems. Subjects view an image that flashes on screen and then classify the object in the image. Images that require brief flashes to recognize are easy, those which require seconds of viewing are hard. We compute the ImageNet and ObjectNet image difficulty distribution, which we find significantly undersamples hard images.

Humans outperform object recognizers despite the fact that models perform well on current datasets, including those explicitly designed to challenge machines with debiased images or distribution shift. This problem persists, in part, because we have no guidance on the absolute difficulty of an image or dataset making it hard to objectively assess progress toward human-level performance, to cover the range of human abilities, and to increase the challenge posed by a dataset. We develop a dataset difficulty metric MVT, Minimum Viewing Time, that addresses these three problems. Subjects view an image that flashes on screen and then classify the object in the image. Images that require brief flashes to recognize are easy, those which require seconds of viewing are hard. We compute the ImageNet and ObjectNet image difficulty distribution, which we find significantly undersamples hard images.

Item Response Theory (IRT) has been proposed within the field of Educational Psychometrics to assess student ability as well as test question difficulty and discrimination power. More recently, IRT has been applied to evaluate machine learning algorithm performance on a single classification dataset, where the student is now an algorithm, and the test question is an observation to be classified by the algorithm. In this paper we present a modified IRT-based framework for evaluating a portfolio of algorithms across a repository of datasets, while simultaneously eliciting a richer suite of characteristics - such as algorithm consistency and anomalousness - that describe important aspects of algorithm performance. These characteristics arise from a novel inversion and reinterpretation of the traditional IRT model without requiring additional dataset feature computations. We test this framework on algorithm portfolios for a wide range of applications, demonstrating the broad applicability of this method as an insightful algorithm evaluation tool. Furthermore, the explainable nature of IRT parameters yield an increased understanding of algorithm portfolios.

Estimating the difficulty of a dataset typically involves comparing state-of-the-art models to humans; the bigger the performance gap, the harder the dataset is said to be. Not only is this framework informal, but it also provides little understanding of how difficult each instance is, or what attributes make it difficult for a given model. To address these problems, we propose an information-theoretic perspective, framing dataset difficulty as the absence of $\textit{usable information}$. Measuring usable information is as easy as measuring performance, but has certain theoretical advantages. While the latter only allows us to compare different models w.r.t the same dataset, the former also allows us to compare different datasets w.r.t the same model. We then introduce $\textit{pointwise}$ $\mathcal{V}-$$\textit{information}$ (PVI) for measuring the difficulty of individual instances, where instances with higher PVI are easier for model $\mathcal{V}$. By manipulating the input before measuring usable information, we can understand $\textit{why}$ a dataset is easy or difficult for a given model, which we use to discover annotation artefacts in widely-used benchmarks.