November 21, 2019
Although the popular MNIST dataset [LeCun et al., 1994] is derived from the NIST database [Grother and Hanaoka, 1995], the precise processing steps for this derivation have been lost to time. We propose a reconstruction that is accurate enough to serve as a replacement for the MNIST dataset, with insignificant changes in accuracy. We trace each MNIST digit to its NIST source and its rich metadata such as writer identifier, partition identifier, etc. We also reconstruct the complete MNIST test set with 60,000 samples instead of the usual 10,000. Since the balance 50,000 were never distributed, they can be used to investigate the impact of twenty-five years of MNIST experiments on the reported testing performances. Our limited results unambiguously confirm the trends observed by Recht et al. [2018, 2019]: although the misclassification rates are slightly off, classifier ordering and model selection remain broadly reliable. We attribute this phenomenon to the pairing benefits of comparing classifiers on the same digits. In practice, this suggests that a shifting data distribution is far more dangerous than overusing an adequately distributed testing set.
February 27, 2026
Yifu Qiu, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk
February 27, 2026
February 26, 2026
Kaiqu Liang, Julia Kruk, Shengyi Qian, Xianjun Yang, Shengjie Bi, Shaoliang Nie, Michael Zhang, Lijuan Liu, Jaime Fernández Fisac, Shuyan Zhou, Saghar Hosseini
February 26, 2026
February 11, 2026
Leon Liangyu Chen, Haoyu Ma, Zhipeng Fan, Ziqi Huang, Animesh Sinha, Xiaoliang Dai, Jialiang Wang, Zecheng He, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Junzhe Sun, Chu Wang, Serena Yeung-Levy, Felix Juefei-Xu
February 11, 2026
January 02, 2026
Yuanhao Cai, Kunpeng Li, Menglin Jia, Jialiang Wang, Junzhe Sun, Feng Liang, Weifeng Chen, Felix Xu, Chu Wang, Ali Thabet, Xiaoliang Dai, Xuan Ju, Alan Yuille, Ji Hou
January 02, 2026

Our approach
Latest news
Foundational models