Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Comparative Survey of Vision Transformers for Feature Extraction in Texture Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.06136 v1 pith:QBA46IPM submitted 2024-06-10 cs.CV cs.LG

classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords texturetasksbeencnnsmodelsrecognitiontexturesvits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Texture, a significant visual attribute in images, has been extensively investigated across various image recognition applications. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), which have been successful in many computer vision tasks, are currently among the best texture analysis approaches. On the other hand, Vision Transformers (ViTs) have been surpassing the performance of CNNs on tasks such as object recognition, causing a paradigm shift in the field. However, ViTs have so far not been scrutinized for texture recognition, hindering a proper appreciation of their potential in this specific setting. For this reason, this work explores various pre-trained ViT architectures when transferred to tasks that rely on textures. We review 21 different ViT variants and perform an extensive evaluation and comparison with CNNs and hand-engineered models on several tasks, such as assessing robustness to changes in texture rotation, scale, and illumination, and distinguishing color textures, material textures, and texture attributes. The goal is to understand the potential and differences among these models when directly applied to texture recognition, using pre-trained ViTs primarily for feature extraction and employing linear classifiers for evaluation. We also evaluate their efficiency, which is one of the main drawbacks in contrast to other methods. Our results show that ViTs generally outperform both CNNs and hand-engineered models, especially when using stronger pre-training and tasks involving in-the-wild textures (images from the internet). We highlight the following promising models: ViT-B with DINO pre-training, BeiTv2, and the Swin architecture, as well as the EfficientFormer as a low-cost alternative. In terms of efficiency, although having a higher number of GFLOPs and parameters, ViT-B and BeiT(v2) can achieve a lower feature extraction time on GPUs compared to ResNet50.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools