Aligning Machine and Human Visual Representations across Abstraction Levels
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper explores the alignment between machine and human visual representations at different levels of abstraction.
- The authors investigate how the internal representations of deep neural networks compare to human conceptual representations.
- They use a series of experiments and analyses to understand the relationship between machine and human perception.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how the way computers "see" and understand images compares to the way humans do. Deep neural networks are a type of AI system that can recognize objects, scenes, and other visual information in images. But the way these systems process and represent that visual information may be quite different from how the human brain does it.
The researchers ran a number of experiments to compare the internal representations, or "mental models," of deep neural networks to those of humans. They looked at how the systems and people group and categorize visual information at different levels of detail or "abstraction." For example, both might recognize that an image contains a "dog," but they may have different understandings of what specific features define a dog.
By understanding these differences in visual representation, the authors hope to shed light on the underlying cognitive processes involved in human and machine perception. This could help improve the design of AI systems to make them more aligned with human cognition and intuition.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the alignment between machine and human visual representations at different levels of abstraction. The authors leverage a series of experiments and analyses to compare the internal representations of deep neural networks to human conceptual representations.
Specifically, they use representational similarity analysis to examine how neural network activations at different layers correspond to human judgments of conceptual similarity. They also explore concept convexity - the degree to which a network's representations of related concepts are organized in a coherent way.
The results indicate that while machine and human visual representations show some alignment, particularly at coarse, high-level abstraction, there are also key differences. The authors discuss how these findings shed light on the cognitive processes underlying human and machine perception, and how this knowledge could inform the design of more human-aligned AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between machine and human visual representations. However, the authors acknowledge several caveats and limitations to their work. For example, they note that the experiments use a limited set of visual stimuli and tasks, and that the findings may not generalize to all types of images or real-world scenarios.
Additionally, while the analyses reveal differences in how machines and humans process visual information, the underlying reasons for these differences are not fully explored. Further research would be needed to better understand the specific cognitive and computational mechanisms driving the observed misalignments.
It would also be helpful to see more discussion of the potential implications and applications of this work. How might these findings inform the development of more human-centric AI systems? What are the broader societal impacts of improving the alignment between machine and human visual perception?
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of machine-human visual representation alignment. However, there is still much work to be done to fully unpack the complexities of this issue and realize its practical applications.
Conclusion
This research explores the alignment between machine and human visual representations across different levels of abstraction. Through a series of experiments and analyses, the authors reveal both areas of alignment and key differences in how deep neural networks and humans process and categorize visual information.
The findings shed light on the underlying cognitive processes involved in human and machine perception, and suggest opportunities to improve the design of AI systems to make them more aligned with human intuition and cognition. While the work has important limitations, it represents a valuable step forward in our understanding of machine-human visual representation alignment and its practical implications.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Aligning Machine and Human Visual Representations across Abstraction Levels
Lukas Muttenthaler, Klaus Greff, Frieda Born, Bernhard Spitzer, Simon Kornblith, Michael C. Mozer, Klaus-Robert Muller, Thomas Unterthiner, Andrew K. Lampinen
Deep neural networks have achieved success across a wide range of applications, including as models of human behavior in vision tasks. However, neural network training and human learning differ in fundamental ways, and neural networks often fail to generalize as robustly as humans do, raising questions regarding the similarity of their underlying representations. What is missing for modern learning systems to exhibit more human-like behavior? We highlight a key misalignment between vision models and humans: whereas human conceptual knowledge is hierarchically organized from fine- to coarse-scale distinctions, model representations do not accurately capture all these levels of abstraction. To address this misalignment, we first train a teacher model to imitate human judgments, then transfer human-like structure from its representations into pretrained state-of-the-art vision foundation models. These human-aligned models more accurately approximate human behavior and uncertainty across a wide range of similarity tasks, including a new dataset of human judgments spanning multiple levels of semantic abstractions. They also perform better on a diverse set of machine learning tasks, increasing generalization and out-of-distribution robustness. Thus, infusing neural networks with additional human knowledge yields a best-of-both-worlds representation that is both more consistent with human cognition and more practically useful, thus paving the way toward more robust, interpretable, and human-like artificial intelligence systems.
Read more9/17/2024
0
Dimensions underlying the representational alignment of deep neural networks with humans
Florian P. Mahner, Lukas Muttenthaler, Umut Guc{c}lu, Martin N. Hebart
Determining the similarities and differences between humans and artificial intelligence is an important goal both in machine learning and cognitive neuroscience. However, similarities in representations only inform us about the degree of alignment, not the factors that determine it. Drawing upon recent developments in cognitive science, we propose a generic framework for yielding comparable representations in humans and deep neural networks (DNN). Applying this framework to humans and a DNN model of natural images revealed a low-dimensional DNN embedding of both visual and semantic dimensions. In contrast to humans, DNNs exhibited a clear dominance of visual over semantic features, indicating divergent strategies for representing images. While in-silico experiments showed seemingly-consistent interpretability of DNN dimensions, a direct comparison between human and DNN representations revealed substantial differences in how they process images. By making representations directly comparable, our results reveal important challenges for representational alignment, offering a means for improving their comparability.
Read more6/28/2024
0
Abstraction Alignment: Comparing Model and Human Conceptual Relationships
Angie Boggust, Hyemin Bang, Hendrik Strobelt, Arvind Satyanarayan
Abstraction -- the process of generalizing specific examples into broad reusable patterns -- is central to how people efficiently process and store information and apply their knowledge to new data. Promisingly, research has shown that ML models learn representations that span levels of abstraction, from specific concepts like bolo tie and car tire to more general concepts like CEO and model. However, existing techniques analyze these representations in isolation, treating learned concepts as independent artifacts rather than an interconnected web of abstraction. As a result, although we can identify the concepts a model uses to produce its output, it is difficult to assess if it has learned a human-aligned abstraction of the concepts that will generalize to new data. To address this gap, we introduce abstraction alignment, a methodology to measure the agreement between a model's learned abstraction and the expected human abstraction. We quantify abstraction alignment by comparing model outputs against a human abstraction graph, such as linguistic relationships or medical disease hierarchies. In evaluation tasks interpreting image models, benchmarking language models, and analyzing medical datasets, abstraction alignment provides a deeper understanding of model behavior and dataset content, differentiating errors based on their agreement with human knowledge, expanding the verbosity of current model quality metrics, and revealing ways to improve existing human abstractions.
Read more7/18/2024
👨🏫
0
Comparing supervised learning dynamics: Deep neural networks match human data efficiency but show a generalisation lag
Lukas S. Huber, Fred W. Mast, Felix A. Wichmann
Recent research has seen many behavioral comparisons between humans and deep neural networks (DNNs) in the domain of image classification. Often, comparison studies focus on the end-result of the learning process by measuring and comparing the similarities in the representations of object categories once they have been formed. However, the process of how these representations emerge -- that is, the behavioral changes and intermediate stages observed during the acquisition -- is less often directly and empirically compared. Here we report a detailed investigation of the learning dynamics in human observers and various classic and state-of-the-art DNNs. We develop a constrained supervised learning environment to align learning-relevant conditions such as starting point, input modality, available input data and the feedback provided. Across the whole learning process we evaluate and compare how well learned representations can be generalized to previously unseen test data. Comparisons across the entire learning process indicate that DNNs demonstrate a level of data efficiency comparable to human learners, challenging some prevailing assumptions in the field. However, our results also reveal representational differences: while DNNs' learning is characterized by a pronounced generalisation lag, humans appear to immediately acquire generalizable representations without a preliminary phase of learning training set-specific information that is only later transferred to novel data.
Read more7/15/2024