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.
June 05, 2026
Zeyu Yang, Qi Ma, Jason Chen, Anshumali Shrivastava
June 05, 2026
May 26, 2026
Josephine Raugel, Max Seitzer, Marc Szafraniec, Huy V. Vo, Jérémy Rapin, Patrick Labatut, Piotr Bojanowski, Valentin Wyart, Jean Remi King
May 26, 2026
May 20, 2026
Dongyan Lin, Phillip Rust, Angel Villar Corrales, Alvin W. M. Tan, Mahi Luthra, Charles-Eric Saint-James, Rashel Moritz, Sheila Krogh-Jespersen, Vanessa Stark, Surya Parimi, Jiayi Shen, Youssef Benchekroun, Yosuke Higuchi, Martin Gleize, Tom Fizycki, Nicolas Hamilakis, Manel Khentout, Sho Tsuji, Balázs Kégl, Juan Pino, Michael C. Frank, Emmanuel Dupoux
May 20, 2026
May 18, 2026
Rohit Patel, Alexandre Rezende, Steven McClain
May 18, 2026

Our approach
Latest news
Foundational models