Skip to content
Back to skills

Robustspring Eval

ASecurity

Evaluates the robustness of dense correspondence models (optical flow, scene flow, stereo) to 20 types of image corruptions by measuring the divergence between predictions on clean images and predictions on corrupted images. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Spring, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports R^c_EPE.

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 11, 2026
researchpythonspringperformance

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 11, 2026

npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill robustspring-eval --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Robustspring Eval?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Robustspring Eval
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/qhjqhj00-robustspring-eval/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-robustspring-eval)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: robustspring-eval
description: Evaluates the robustness of dense correspondence models (optical flow, scene flow, stereo) to 20 types of image corruptions by measuring the divergence between predictions on clean images and predictions on corrupted images. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Spring, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports R^c_EPE.
metadata:
  skill_kind: dataset_eval
  source_arxiv: 2505.09368
  bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
  confidence: high
---

# robustspring-eval

> RobustSpring: Benchmarking Robustness to Image Corruptions for Optical Flow, Scene Flow and Stereo — Schmalfuss et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.09368, 2025)

## What this evaluates

Evaluates the robustness of dense correspondence models (optical flow, scene flow, stereo) to 20 types of image corruptions by measuring the divergence between predictions on clean images and predictions on corrupted images.

## Datasets

- **Spring** — total ?; splits: test (-1)

## Metrics

- `R^c_EPE` **(primary)** — range: other
  - End-Point Error between the model's prediction on clean images and its prediction on corrupted images: $R^c_{\text{EPE}} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \| \hat{y}_{\text{clean}, i} - \hat{y}_{\text{corrupted}, i} \|_2$. Lower values indicate higher robustness. Variants include $R^c_{\text{1px}}$, $R^c_{\text{Abs}}$, $R^c_{\text{D1}}$, $R^c_{\text{D2}}$, and $R^c_{\text{Fl}}$ for different error thresholds.

## Input / output format

**Input**: Corrupted image pairs (or video frames) with applied corruptions (noise, blur, weather, quality, color) and ground truth dense correspondences/disparities.

**Output**: Dense flow vectors, scene flow vectors, or disparity maps.

## Scoring recipe

```python
def compute_rc_epe(pred_clean, pred_corrupted):
    # pred_clean and pred_corrupted are dense flow/disparity maps
    error = np.linalg.norm(pred_clean - pred_corrupted, axis=-1)
    return np.mean(error)
```

## Common pitfalls

- Ranking models using only the Average $R^c_{\text{EPE}}$ can misrepresent robustness compared to Median or Schulze rankings, as averages are highly sensitive to outlier corruptions like rain.
- Subsampling must exclude full-resolution 'Hero-frames'; otherwise, the 0.05% subsample will not align with full-dataset results.
- Weather and noise corruptions dominate the error scores, often masking performance differences on milder corruptions.

## Evidence (verbatim from paper)

> corruption robustness $R^{c}_{\text{EPE}}$ between clean and corrupted predictions. Low values indicate robust models

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{schmalfuss2025robustspring,
  title={RobustSpring: Benchmarking Robustness to Image Corruptions for Optical Flow, Scene Flow and Stereo},
  author={Schmalfuss et al. (2025)},
  year={2025},
  note={arXiv:2505.09368}
}
```

- arXiv: 2505.09368

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.