Showing 1–23 of 23 results for author: Geirhos, R

How Aligned are Different Alignment Metrics?

Authors: Jannis Ahlert, Thomas Klein, Felix Wichmann, Robert Geirhos

Abstract: In recent years, various methods and benchmarks have been proposed to empirically evaluate the alignment of artificial neural networks to human neural and behavioral data. But how aligned are different alignment metrics? To answer this question, we analyze visual data from Brain-Score (Schrimpf et al., 2018), including metrics from the model-vs-human toolbox (Geirhos et al., 2021), together with h… ▽ More In recent years, various methods and benchmarks have been proposed to empirically evaluate the alignment of artificial neural networks to human neural and behavioral data. But how aligned are different alignment metrics? To answer this question, we analyze visual data from Brain-Score (Schrimpf et al., 2018), including metrics from the model-vs-human toolbox (Geirhos et al., 2021), together with human feature alignment (Linsley et al., 2018; Fel et al., 2022) and human similarity judgements (Muttenthaler et al., 2022). We find that pairwise correlations between neural scores and behavioral scores are quite low and sometimes even negative. For instance, the average correlation between those 80 models on Brain-Score that were fully evaluated on all 69 alignment metrics we considered is only 0.198. Assuming that all of the employed metrics are sound, this implies that alignment with human perception may best be thought of as a multidimensional concept, with different methods measuring fundamentally different aspects. Our results underline the importance of integrative benchmarking, but also raise questions about how to correctly combine and aggregate individual metrics. Aggregating by taking the arithmetic average, as done in Brain-Score, leads to the overall performance currently being dominated by behavior (95.25% explained variance) while the neural predictivity plays a less important role (only 33.33% explained variance). As a first step towards making sure that different alignment metrics all contribute fairly towards an integrative benchmark score, we therefore conclude by comparing three different aggregation options. △ Less

Submitted 10 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: submitted to the ICLR 2024 Workshop on Representational Alignment (Re-Align)

Are Vision Language Models Texture or Shape Biased and Can We Steer Them?

Authors: Paul Gavrikov, Jovita Lukasik, Steffen Jung, Robert Geirhos, Bianca Lamm, Muhammad Jehanzeb Mirza, Margret Keuper, Janis Keuper

Abstract: Vision language models (VLMs) have drastically changed the computer vision model landscape in only a few years, opening an exciting array of new applications from zero-shot image classification, over to image captioning, and visual question answering. Unlike pure vision models, they offer an intuitive way to access visual content through language prompting. The wide applicability of such models en… ▽ More Vision language models (VLMs) have drastically changed the computer vision model landscape in only a few years, opening an exciting array of new applications from zero-shot image classification, over to image captioning, and visual question answering. Unlike pure vision models, they offer an intuitive way to access visual content through language prompting. The wide applicability of such models encourages us to ask whether they also align with human vision - specifically, how far they adopt human-induced visual biases through multimodal fusion, or whether they simply inherit biases from pure vision models. One important visual bias is the texture vs. shape bias, or the dominance of local over global information. In this paper, we study this bias in a wide range of popular VLMs. Interestingly, we find that VLMs are often more shape-biased than their vision encoders, indicating that visual biases are modulated to some extent through text in multimodal models. If text does indeed influence visual biases, this suggests that we may be able to steer visual biases not just through visual input but also through language: a hypothesis that we confirm through extensive experiments. For instance, we are able to steer shape bias from as low as 49% to as high as 72% through prompting alone. For now, the strong human bias towards shape (96%) remains out of reach for all tested VLMs. △ Less

Submitted 14 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

Neither hype nor gloom do DNNs justice

Authors: Felix A. Wichmann, Simon Kornblith, Robert Geirhos

Abstract: Neither the hype exemplified in some exaggerated claims about deep neural networks (DNNs), nor the gloom expressed by Bowers et al. do DNNs as models in vision science justice: DNNs rapidly evolve, and today's limitations are often tomorrow's successes. In addition, providing explanations as well as prediction and image-computability are model desiderata; one should not be favoured at the expense… ▽ More Neither the hype exemplified in some exaggerated claims about deep neural networks (DNNs), nor the gloom expressed by Bowers et al. do DNNs as models in vision science justice: DNNs rapidly evolve, and today's limitations are often tomorrow's successes. In addition, providing explanations as well as prediction and image-computability are model desiderata; one should not be favoured at the expense of the other. △ Less

Submitted 8 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Comments: Preprint version of a commentary published by Behavioral and Brain Sciences (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/neither-hype-nor-gloom-do-dnns-justice/639AA5BC7F6E3B91E9B9EC8463D39F77)

Getting aligned on representational alignment

Authors: Ilia Sucholutsky, Lukas Muttenthaler, Adrian Weller, Andi Peng, Andreea Bobu, Been Kim, Bradley C. Love, Erin Grant, Iris Groen, Jascha Achterberg, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Katherine M. Collins, Katherine L. Hermann, Kerem Oktar, Klaus Greff, Martin N. Hebart, Nori Jacoby, Qiuyi Zhang, Raja Marjieh, Robert Geirhos, Sherol Chen, Simon Kornblith, Sunayana Rane, Talia Konkle, Thomas P. O'Connell , et al. (5 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Biological and artificial information processing systems form representations that they can use to categorize, reason, plan, navigate, and make decisions. How can we measure the extent to which the representations formed by these diverse systems agree? Do similarities in representations then translate into similar behavior? How can a system's representations be modified to better match those of an… ▽ More Biological and artificial information processing systems form representations that they can use to categorize, reason, plan, navigate, and make decisions. How can we measure the extent to which the representations formed by these diverse systems agree? Do similarities in representations then translate into similar behavior? How can a system's representations be modified to better match those of another system? These questions pertaining to the study of representational alignment are at the heart of some of the most active research areas in cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning. For example, cognitive scientists measure the representational alignment of multiple individuals to identify shared cognitive priors, neuroscientists align fMRI responses from multiple individuals into a shared representational space for group-level analyses, and ML researchers distill knowledge from teacher models into student models by increasing their alignment. Unfortunately, there is limited knowledge transfer between research communities interested in representational alignment, so progress in one field often ends up being rediscovered independently in another. Thus, greater cross-field communication would be advantageous. To improve communication between these fields, we propose a unifying framework that can serve as a common language between researchers studying representational alignment. We survey the literature from all three fields and demonstrate how prior work fits into this framework. Finally, we lay out open problems in representational alignment where progress can benefit all three of these fields. We hope that our work can catalyze cross-disciplinary collaboration and accelerate progress for all communities studying and develo** information processing systems. We note that this is a working paper and encourage readers to reach out with their suggestions for future revisions. △ Less

Submitted 2 November, 2023; v1 submitted 18 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Working paper, changes to be made in upcoming revisions

Intriguing properties of generative classifiers

Authors: Priyank Jaini, Kevin Clark, Robert Geirhos

Abstract: What is the best paradigm to recognize objects -- discriminative inference (fast but potentially prone to shortcut learning) or using a generative model (slow but potentially more robust)? We build on recent advances in generative modeling that turn text-to-image models into classifiers. This allows us to study their behavior and to compare them against discriminative models and human psychophysic… ▽ More What is the best paradigm to recognize objects -- discriminative inference (fast but potentially prone to shortcut learning) or using a generative model (slow but potentially more robust)? We build on recent advances in generative modeling that turn text-to-image models into classifiers. This allows us to study their behavior and to compare them against discriminative models and human psychophysical data. We report four intriguing emergent properties of generative classifiers: they show a record-breaking human-like shape bias (99% for Imagen), near human-level out-of-distribution accuracy, state-of-the-art alignment with human classification errors, and they understand certain perceptual illusions. Our results indicate that while the current dominant paradigm for modeling human object recognition is discriminative inference, zero-shot generative models approximate human object recognition data surprisingly well. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2024; v1 submitted 28 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

Comments: ICLR 2024 Spotlight

Patch n' Pack: NaViT, a Vision Transformer for any Aspect Ratio and Resolution

Authors: Mostafa Dehghani, Basil Mustafa, Josip Djolonga, Jonathan Heek, Matthias Minderer, Mathilde Caron, Andreas Steiner, Joan Puigcerver, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Avital Oliver, Piotr Padlewski, Alexey Gritsenko, Mario Lučić, Neil Houlsby

Abstract: The ubiquitous and demonstrably suboptimal choice of resizing images to a fixed resolution before processing them with computer vision models has not yet been successfully challenged. However, models such as the Vision Transformer (ViT) offer flexible sequence-based modeling, and hence varying input sequence lengths. We take advantage of this with NaViT (Native Resolution ViT) which uses sequence… ▽ More The ubiquitous and demonstrably suboptimal choice of resizing images to a fixed resolution before processing them with computer vision models has not yet been successfully challenged. However, models such as the Vision Transformer (ViT) offer flexible sequence-based modeling, and hence varying input sequence lengths. We take advantage of this with NaViT (Native Resolution ViT) which uses sequence packing during training to process inputs of arbitrary resolutions and aspect ratios. Alongside flexible model usage, we demonstrate improved training efficiency for large-scale supervised and contrastive image-text pretraining. NaViT can be efficiently transferred to standard tasks such as image and video classification, object detection, and semantic segmentation and leads to improved results on robustness and fairness benchmarks. At inference time, the input resolution flexibility can be used to smoothly navigate the test-time cost-performance trade-off. We believe that NaViT marks a departure from the standard, CNN-designed, input and modelling pipeline used by most computer vision models, and represents a promising direction for ViTs. △ Less

Submitted 12 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Don't trust your eyes: on the (un)reliability of feature visualizations

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Roland S. Zimmermann, Blair Bilodeau, Wieland Brendel, Been Kim

Abstract: How do neural networks extract patterns from pixels? Feature visualizations attempt to answer this important question by visualizing highly activating patterns through optimization. Today, visualization methods form the foundation of our knowledge about the internal workings of neural networks, as a type of mechanistic interpretability. Here we ask: How reliable are feature visualizations? We star… ▽ More How do neural networks extract patterns from pixels? Feature visualizations attempt to answer this important question by visualizing highly activating patterns through optimization. Today, visualization methods form the foundation of our knowledge about the internal workings of neural networks, as a type of mechanistic interpretability. Here we ask: How reliable are feature visualizations? We start our investigation by develo** network circuits that trick feature visualizations into showing arbitrary patterns that are completely disconnected from normal network behavior on natural input. We then provide evidence for a similar phenomenon occurring in standard, unmanipulated networks: feature visualizations are processed very differently from standard input, casting doubt on their ability to "explain" how neural networks process natural images. This can be used as a sanity check for feature visualizations. We underpin our empirical findings by theory proving that the set of functions that can be reliably understood by feature visualization is extremely small and does not include general black-box neural networks. Therefore, a promising way forward could be the development of networks that enforce certain structures in order to ensure more reliable feature visualizations. △ Less

Submitted 6 June, 2024; v1 submitted 7 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: ICML 2024 camera ready version

Are Deep Neural Networks Adequate Behavioural Models of Human Visual Perception?

Authors: Felix A. Wichmann, Robert Geirhos

Abstract: Deep neural networks (DNNs) are machine learning algorithms that have revolutionised computer vision due to their remarkable successes in tasks like object classification and segmentation. The success of DNNs as computer vision algorithms has led to the suggestion that DNNs may also be good models of human visual perception. We here review evidence regarding current DNNs as adequate behavioural mo… ▽ More Deep neural networks (DNNs) are machine learning algorithms that have revolutionised computer vision due to their remarkable successes in tasks like object classification and segmentation. The success of DNNs as computer vision algorithms has led to the suggestion that DNNs may also be good models of human visual perception. We here review evidence regarding current DNNs as adequate behavioural models of human core object recognition. To this end, we argue that it is important to distinguish between statistical tools and computational models, and to understand model quality as a multidimensional concept where clarity about modelling goals is key. Reviewing a large number of psychophysical and computational explorations of core object recognition performance in humans and DNNs, we argue that DNNs are highly valuable scientific tools but that as of today DNNs should only be regarded as promising -- but not yet adequate -- computational models of human core object recognition behaviour. On the way we dispel a number of myths surrounding DNNs in vision science. △ Less

Submitted 26 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Comments: Preprint version of article accepted by Annual Review of Vision Science (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-vision-120522-031739). Posted with permission from the Annual Review of Vision Science, Volume 9 by Annual Reviews, http://www.annualreviews.org

Scaling Vision Transformers to 22 Billion Parameters

Authors: Mostafa Dehghani, Josip Djolonga, Basil Mustafa, Piotr Padlewski, Jonathan Heek, Justin Gilmer, Andreas Steiner, Mathilde Caron, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Rodolphe Jenatton, Lucas Beyer, Michael Tschannen, Anurag Arnab, Xiao Wang, Carlos Riquelme, Matthias Minderer, Joan Puigcerver, Utku Evci, Manoj Kumar, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Gamaleldin F. Elsayed, Aravindh Mahendran, Fisher Yu, Avital Oliver , et al. (17 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: The scaling of Transformers has driven breakthrough capabilities for language models. At present, the largest large language models (LLMs) contain upwards of 100B parameters. Vision Transformers (ViT) have introduced the same architecture to image and video modelling, but these have not yet been successfully scaled to nearly the same degree; the largest dense ViT contains 4B parameters (Chen et al… ▽ More The scaling of Transformers has driven breakthrough capabilities for language models. At present, the largest large language models (LLMs) contain upwards of 100B parameters. Vision Transformers (ViT) have introduced the same architecture to image and video modelling, but these have not yet been successfully scaled to nearly the same degree; the largest dense ViT contains 4B parameters (Chen et al., 2022). We present a recipe for highly efficient and stable training of a 22B-parameter ViT (ViT-22B) and perform a wide variety of experiments on the resulting model. When evaluated on downstream tasks (often with a lightweight linear model on frozen features), ViT-22B demonstrates increasing performance with scale. We further observe other interesting benefits of scale, including an improved tradeoff between fairness and performance, state-of-the-art alignment to human visual perception in terms of shape/texture bias, and improved robustness. ViT-22B demonstrates the potential for "LLM-like" scaling in vision, and provides key steps towards getting there. △ Less

Submitted 10 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning

Authors: Ben Sorscher, Robert Geirhos, Shashank Shekhar, Surya Ganguli, Ari S. Morcos

Abstract: Widely observed neural scaling laws, in which error falls off as a power of the training set size, model size, or both, have driven substantial performance improvements in deep learning. However, these improvements through scaling alone require considerable costs in compute and energy. Here we focus on the scaling of error with dataset size and show how in theory we can break beyond power law scal… ▽ More Widely observed neural scaling laws, in which error falls off as a power of the training set size, model size, or both, have driven substantial performance improvements in deep learning. However, these improvements through scaling alone require considerable costs in compute and energy. Here we focus on the scaling of error with dataset size and show how in theory we can break beyond power law scaling and potentially even reduce it to exponential scaling instead if we have access to a high-quality data pruning metric that ranks the order in which training examples should be discarded to achieve any pruned dataset size. We then test this improved scaling prediction with pruned dataset size empirically, and indeed observe better than power law scaling in practice on ResNets trained on CIFAR-10, SVHN, and ImageNet. Next, given the importance of finding high-quality pruning metrics, we perform the first large-scale benchmarking study of ten different data pruning metrics on ImageNet. We find most existing high performing metrics scale poorly to ImageNet, while the best are computationally intensive and require labels for every image. We therefore developed a new simple, cheap and scalable self-supervised pruning metric that demonstrates comparable performance to the best supervised metrics. Overall, our work suggests that the discovery of good data-pruning metrics may provide a viable path forward to substantially improved neural scaling laws, thereby reducing the resource costs of modern deep learning. △ Less

Submitted 21 April, 2023; v1 submitted 29 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: Outstanding Paper Award @ NeurIPS 2022. Added github link to metric scores

The developmental trajectory of object recognition robustness: children are like small adults but unlike big deep neural networks

Authors: Lukas S. Huber, Robert Geirhos, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: In laboratory object recognition tasks based on undistorted photographs, both adult humans and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) perform close to ceiling. Unlike adults', whose object recognition performance is robust against a wide range of image distortions, DNNs trained on standard ImageNet (1.3M images) perform poorly on distorted images. However, the last two years have seen impressive gains in DNN… ▽ More In laboratory object recognition tasks based on undistorted photographs, both adult humans and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) perform close to ceiling. Unlike adults', whose object recognition performance is robust against a wide range of image distortions, DNNs trained on standard ImageNet (1.3M images) perform poorly on distorted images. However, the last two years have seen impressive gains in DNN distortion robustness, predominantly achieved through ever-increasing large-scale datasets$\unicode{x2014}$orders of magnitude larger than ImageNet. While this simple brute-force approach is very effective in achieving human-level robustness in DNNs, it raises the question of whether human robustness, too, is simply due to extensive experience with (distorted) visual input during childhood and beyond. Here we investigate this question by comparing the core object recognition performance of 146 children (aged 4$\unicode{x2013}$15) against adults and against DNNs. We find, first, that already 4$\unicode{x2013}$6 year-olds showed remarkable robustness to image distortions and outperform DNNs trained on ImageNet. Second, we estimated the number of $\unicode{x201C}$images$\unicode{x201D}$ children have been exposed to during their lifetime. Compared to various DNNs, children's high robustness requires relatively little data. Third, when recognizing objects children$\unicode{x2014}$like adults but unlike DNNs$\unicode{x2014}$rely heavily on shape but not on texture cues. Together our results suggest that the remarkable robustness to distortions emerges early in the developmental trajectory of human object recognition and is unlikely the result of a mere accumulation of experience with distorted visual input. Even though current DNNs match human performance regarding robustness they seem to rely on different and more data-hungry strategies to do so. △ Less

Submitted 20 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: Manuscript under review at Journal of Vision

Trivial or impossible -- dichotomous data difficulty masks model differences (on ImageNet and beyond)

Authors: Kristof Meding, Luca M. Schulze Buschoff, Robert Geirhos, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: "The power of a generalization system follows directly from its biases" (Mitchell 1980). Today, CNNs are incredibly powerful generalisation systems -- but to what degree have we understood how their inductive bias influences model decisions? We here attempt to disentangle the various aspects that determine how a model decides. In particular, we ask: what makes one model decide differently from ano… ▽ More "The power of a generalization system follows directly from its biases" (Mitchell 1980). Today, CNNs are incredibly powerful generalisation systems -- but to what degree have we understood how their inductive bias influences model decisions? We here attempt to disentangle the various aspects that determine how a model decides. In particular, we ask: what makes one model decide differently from another? In a meticulously controlled setting, we find that (1.) irrespective of the network architecture or objective (e.g. self-supervised, semi-supervised, vision transformers, recurrent models) all models end up with a similar decision boundary. (2.) To understand these findings, we analysed model decisions on the ImageNet validation set from epoch to epoch and image by image. We find that the ImageNet validation set, among others, suffers from dichotomous data difficulty (DDD): For the range of investigated models and their accuracies, it is dominated by 46.0% "trivial" and 11.5% "impossible" images (beyond label errors). Only 42.5% of the images could possibly be responsible for the differences between two models' decision boundaries. (3.) Only removing the "impossible" and "trivial" images allows us to see pronounced differences between models. (4.) Humans are highly accurate at predicting which images are "trivial" and "impossible" for CNNs (81.4%). This implies that in future comparisons of brains, machines and behaviour, much may be gained from investigating the decisive role of images and the distribution of their difficulties. △ Less

Submitted 27 April, 2022; v1 submitted 12 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022

How Well do Feature Visualizations Support Causal Understanding of CNN Activations?

Authors: Roland S. Zimmermann, Judy Borowski, Robert Geirhos, Matthias Bethge, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These synthetic feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a u… ▽ More A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These synthetic feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a unit to be activated - an advantage over other alternatives like strongly activating natural dataset samples. If humans indeed gain causal insight from visualizations, this should enable them to predict the effect of an intervention, such as how occluding a certain patch of the image (say, a dog's head) changes a unit's activation. Here, we test this hypothesis by asking humans to decide which of two square occlusions causes a larger change to a unit's activation. Both a large-scale crowdsourced experiment and measurements with experts show that on average the extremely activating feature visualizations by Olah et al. (2017) indeed help humans on this task ($68 \pm 4$% accuracy; baseline performance without any visualizations is $60 \pm 3$%). However, they do not provide any substantial advantage over other visualizations (such as e.g. dataset samples), which yield similar performance ($66\pm3$% to $67 \pm3$% accuracy). Taken together, we propose an objective psychophysical task to quantify the benefit of unit-level interpretability methods for humans, and find no evidence that a widely-used feature visualization method provides humans with better "causal understanding" of unit activations than simple alternative visualizations. △ Less

Submitted 12 November, 2021; v1 submitted 23 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Comments: Presented at NeurIPS 2021. Shared first and last authorship. Project website at https://brendel-group.github.io/causal-understanding-via-visualizations/

Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Kantharaju Narayanappa, Benjamin Mitzkus, Tizian Thieringer, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: A few years ago, the first CNN surpassed human performance on ImageNet. However, it soon became clear that machines lack robustness on more challenging test cases, a major obstacle towards deploying machines "in the wild" and towards obtaining better computational models of human visual perception. Here we ask: Are we making progress in closing the gap between human and machine vision? To answer t… ▽ More A few years ago, the first CNN surpassed human performance on ImageNet. However, it soon became clear that machines lack robustness on more challenging test cases, a major obstacle towards deploying machines "in the wild" and towards obtaining better computational models of human visual perception. Here we ask: Are we making progress in closing the gap between human and machine vision? To answer this question, we tested human observers on a broad range of out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets, recording 85,120 psychophysical trials across 90 participants. We then investigated a range of promising machine learning developments that crucially deviate from standard supervised CNNs along three axes: objective function (self-supervised, adversarially trained, CLIP language-image training), architecture (e.g. vision transformers), and dataset size (ranging from 1M to 1B). Our findings are threefold. (1.) The longstanding distortion robustness gap between humans and CNNs is closing, with the best models now exceeding human feedforward performance on most of the investigated OOD datasets. (2.) There is still a substantial image-level consistency gap, meaning that humans make different errors than models. In contrast, most models systematically agree in their categorisation errors, even substantially different ones like contrastive self-supervised vs. standard supervised models. (3.) In many cases, human-to-model consistency improves when training dataset size is increased by one to three orders of magnitude. Our results give reason for cautious optimism: While there is still much room for improvement, the behavioural difference between human and machine vision is narrowing. In order to measure future progress, 17 OOD datasets with image-level human behavioural data and evaluation code are provided as a toolbox and benchmark at: https://github.com/bethgelab/model-vs-human/ △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2021; v1 submitted 14 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Comments: NeurIPS 2021 Oral, camera ready version. A preliminary version of this work was presented as Oral at the 2020 NeurIPS workshop on "Shared Visual Representations in Human & Machine Intelligence" (arXiv:2010.08377)

Exemplary Natural Images Explain CNN Activations Better than State-of-the-Art Feature Visualization

Authors: Judy Borowski, Roland S. Zimmermann, Judith Schepers, Robert Geirhos, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: Feature visualizations such as synthetic maximally activating images are a widely used explanation method to better understand the information processing of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At the same time, there are concerns that these visualizations might not accurately represent CNNs' inner workings. Here, we measure how much extremely activating images help humans to predict CNN activati… ▽ More Feature visualizations such as synthetic maximally activating images are a widely used explanation method to better understand the information processing of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At the same time, there are concerns that these visualizations might not accurately represent CNNs' inner workings. Here, we measure how much extremely activating images help humans to predict CNN activations. Using a well-controlled psychophysical paradigm, we compare the informativeness of synthetic images by Olah et al. (2017) with a simple baseline visualization, namely exemplary natural images that also strongly activate a specific feature map. Given either synthetic or natural reference images, human participants choose which of two query images leads to strong positive activation. The experiments are designed to maximize participants' performance, and are the first to probe intermediate instead of final layer representations. We find that synthetic images indeed provide helpful information about feature map activations ($82\pm4\%$ accuracy; chance would be $50\%$). However, natural images - originally intended as a baseline - outperform synthetic images by a wide margin ($92\pm2\%$). Additionally, participants are faster and more confident for natural images, whereas subjective impressions about the interpretability of the feature visualizations are mixed. The higher informativeness of natural images holds across most layers, for both expert and lay participants as well as for hand- and randomly-picked feature visualizations. Even if only a single reference image is given, synthetic images provide less information than natural images ($65\pm5\%$ vs. $73\pm4\%$). In summary, synthetic images from a popular feature visualization method are significantly less informative for assessing CNN activations than natural images. We argue that visualization methods should improve over this baseline. △ Less

Submitted 2 May, 2021; v1 submitted 23 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: Published at ICLR 2021. Joint first and last authors. Code is available at https://bethgelab.github.io/testing_visualizations/

On the surprising similarities between supervised and self-supervised models

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Kantharaju Narayanappa, Benjamin Mitzkus, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: How do humans learn to acquire a powerful, flexible and robust representation of objects? While much of this process remains unknown, it is clear that humans do not require millions of object labels. Excitingly, recent algorithmic advancements in self-supervised learning now enable convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn useful visual object representations without supervised labels, too. In… ▽ More How do humans learn to acquire a powerful, flexible and robust representation of objects? While much of this process remains unknown, it is clear that humans do not require millions of object labels. Excitingly, recent algorithmic advancements in self-supervised learning now enable convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn useful visual object representations without supervised labels, too. In the light of this recent breakthrough, we here compare self-supervised networks to supervised models and human behaviour. We tested models on 15 generalisation datasets for which large-scale human behavioural data is available (130K highly controlled psychophysical trials). Surprisingly, current self-supervised CNNs share four key characteristics of their supervised counterparts: (1.) relatively poor noise robustness (with the notable exception of SimCLR), (2.) non-human category-level error patterns, (3.) non-human image-level error patterns (yet high similarity to supervised model errors) and (4.) a bias towards texture. Taken together, these results suggest that the strategies learned through today's supervised and self-supervised training objectives end up being surprisingly similar, but distant from human-like behaviour. That being said, we are clearly just at the beginning of what could be called a self-supervised revolution of machine vision, and we are hopeful that future self-supervised models behave differently from supervised ones, and---perhaps---more similar to robust human object recognition. △ Less

Submitted 16 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Beyond accuracy: quantifying trial-by-trial behaviour of CNNs and humans by measuring error consistency

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Kristof Meding, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: A central problem in cognitive science and behavioural neuroscience as well as in machine learning and artificial intelligence research is to ascertain whether two or more decision makers (be they brains or algorithms) use the same strategy. Accuracy alone cannot distinguish between strategies: two systems may achieve similar accuracy with very different strategies. The need to differentiate beyon… ▽ More A central problem in cognitive science and behavioural neuroscience as well as in machine learning and artificial intelligence research is to ascertain whether two or more decision makers (be they brains or algorithms) use the same strategy. Accuracy alone cannot distinguish between strategies: two systems may achieve similar accuracy with very different strategies. The need to differentiate beyond accuracy is particularly pressing if two systems are near ceiling performance, like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and humans on visual object recognition. Here we introduce trial-by-trial error consistency, a quantitative analysis for measuring whether two decision making systems systematically make errors on the same inputs. Making consistent errors on a trial-by-trial basis is a necessary condition for similar processing strategies between decision makers. Our analysis is applicable to compare algorithms with algorithms, humans with humans, and algorithms with humans. When applying error consistency to object recognition we obtain three main findings: (1.) Irrespective of architecture, CNNs are remarkably consistent with one another. (2.) The consistency between CNNs and human observers, however, is little above what can be expected by chance alone -- indicating that humans and CNNs are likely implementing very different strategies. (3.) CORnet-S, a recurrent model termed the "current best model of the primate ventral visual stream", fails to capture essential characteristics of human behavioural data and behaves essentially like a standard purely feedforward ResNet-50 in our analysis. Taken together, error consistency analysis suggests that the strategies used by human and machine vision are still very different -- but we envision our general-purpose error consistency analysis to serve as a fruitful tool for quantifying future progress. △ Less

Submitted 18 December, 2020; v1 submitted 30 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Comments: NeurIPS 2020 camera ready

Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: Deep learning has triggered the current rise of artificial intelligence and is the workhorse of today's machine intelligence. Numerous success stories have rapidly spread all over science, industry and society, but its limitations have only recently come into focus. In this perspective we seek to distill how many of deep learning's problems can be seen as different symptoms of the same underlying… ▽ More Deep learning has triggered the current rise of artificial intelligence and is the workhorse of today's machine intelligence. Numerous success stories have rapidly spread all over science, industry and society, but its limitations have only recently come into focus. In this perspective we seek to distill how many of deep learning's problems can be seen as different symptoms of the same underlying problem: shortcut learning. Shortcuts are decision rules that perform well on standard benchmarks but fail to transfer to more challenging testing conditions, such as real-world scenarios. Related issues are known in Comparative Psychology, Education and Linguistics, suggesting that shortcut learning may be a common characteristic of learning systems, biological and artificial alike. Based on these observations, we develop a set of recommendations for model interpretation and benchmarking, highlighting recent advances in machine learning to improve robustness and transferability from the lab to real-world applications. △ Less

Submitted 21 November, 2023; v1 submitted 16 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

Comments: perspective article published at Nature Machine Intelligence (https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-00257-z)

Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Coming

Authors: Claudio Michaelis, Benjamin Mitzkus, Robert Geirhos, Evgenia Rusak, Oliver Bringmann, Alexander S. Ecker, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: The ability to detect objects regardless of image distortions or weather conditions is crucial for real-world applications of deep learning like autonomous driving. We here provide an easy-to-use benchmark to assess how object detection models perform when image quality degrades. The three resulting benchmark datasets, termed Pascal-C, Coco-C and Cityscapes-C, contain a large variety of image corr… ▽ More The ability to detect objects regardless of image distortions or weather conditions is crucial for real-world applications of deep learning like autonomous driving. We here provide an easy-to-use benchmark to assess how object detection models perform when image quality degrades. The three resulting benchmark datasets, termed Pascal-C, Coco-C and Cityscapes-C, contain a large variety of image corruptions. We show that a range of standard object detection models suffer a severe performance loss on corrupted images (down to 30--60\% of the original performance). However, a simple data augmentation trick---stylizing the training images---leads to a substantial increase in robustness across corruption type, severity and dataset. We envision our comprehensive benchmark to track future progress towards building robust object detection models. Benchmark, code and data are publicly available. △ Less

Submitted 31 March, 2020; v1 submitted 17 July, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Comments: 21 pages, 10 figures, 1 dragon

Comparison-Based Framework for Psychophysics: Lab versus Crowdsourcing

Authors: Siavash Haghiri, Patricia Rubisch, Robert Geirhos, Felix Wichmann, Ulrike von Luxburg

Abstract: Traditionally, psychophysical experiments are conducted by repeated measurements on a few well-trained participants under well-controlled conditions, often resulting in, if done properly, high quality data. In recent years, however, crowdsourcing platforms are becoming increasingly popular means of data collection, measuring many participants at the potential cost of obtaining data of worse qualit… ▽ More Traditionally, psychophysical experiments are conducted by repeated measurements on a few well-trained participants under well-controlled conditions, often resulting in, if done properly, high quality data. In recent years, however, crowdsourcing platforms are becoming increasingly popular means of data collection, measuring many participants at the potential cost of obtaining data of worse quality. In this paper we study whether the use of comparison-based (ordinal) data, combined with machine learning algorithms, can boost the reliability of crowdsourcing studies for psychophysics, such that they can achieve performance close to a lab experiment. To this end, we compare three setups: simulations, a psychophysics lab experiment, and the same experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk. All these experiments are conducted in a comparison-based setting where participants have to answer triplet questions of the form "is object x closer to y or to z?". We then use machine learning to solve the triplet prediction problem: given a subset of triplet questions with corresponding answers, we predict the answer to the remaining questions. Considering the limitations and noise on MTurk, we find that the accuracy of triplet prediction is surprisingly close---but not equal---to our lab study. △ Less

Submitted 26 July, 2019; v1 submitted 17 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Patricia Rubisch, Claudio Michaelis, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann, Wieland Brendel

Abstract: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are commonly thought to recognise objects by learning increasingly complex representations of object shapes. Some recent studies suggest a more important role of image textures. We here put these conflicting hypotheses to a quantitative test by evaluating CNNs and human observers on images with a texture-shape cue conflict. We show that ImageNet-trained CNNs ar… ▽ More Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are commonly thought to recognise objects by learning increasingly complex representations of object shapes. Some recent studies suggest a more important role of image textures. We here put these conflicting hypotheses to a quantitative test by evaluating CNNs and human observers on images with a texture-shape cue conflict. We show that ImageNet-trained CNNs are strongly biased towards recognising textures rather than shapes, which is in stark contrast to human behavioural evidence and reveals fundamentally different classification strategies. We then demonstrate that the same standard architecture (ResNet-50) that learns a texture-based representation on ImageNet is able to learn a shape-based representation instead when trained on "Stylized-ImageNet", a stylized version of ImageNet. This provides a much better fit for human behavioural performance in our well-controlled psychophysical lab setting (nine experiments totalling 48,560 psychophysical trials across 97 observers) and comes with a number of unexpected emergent benefits such as improved object detection performance and previously unseen robustness towards a wide range of image distortions, highlighting advantages of a shape-based representation. △ Less

Submitted 9 November, 2022; v1 submitted 29 November, 2018; originally announced November 2018.

Comments: Accepted at ICLR 2019 (oral)

Generalisation in humans and deep neural networks

Authors: Robert Geirhos, Carlos R. Medina Temme, Jonas Rauber, Heiko H. Schütt, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: We compare the robustness of humans and current convolutional deep neural networks (DNNs) on object recognition under twelve different types of image degradations. First, using three well known DNNs (ResNet-152, VGG-19, GoogLeNet) we find the human visual system to be more robust to nearly all of the tested image manipulations, and we observe progressively diverging classification error-patterns b… ▽ More We compare the robustness of humans and current convolutional deep neural networks (DNNs) on object recognition under twelve different types of image degradations. First, using three well known DNNs (ResNet-152, VGG-19, GoogLeNet) we find the human visual system to be more robust to nearly all of the tested image manipulations, and we observe progressively diverging classification error-patterns between humans and DNNs when the signal gets weaker. Secondly, we show that DNNs trained directly on distorted images consistently surpass human performance on the exact distortion types they were trained on, yet they display extremely poor generalisation abilities when tested on other distortion types. For example, training on salt-and-pepper noise does not imply robustness on uniform white noise and vice versa. Thus, changes in the noise distribution between training and testing constitutes a crucial challenge to deep learning vision systems that can be systematically addressed in a lifelong machine learning approach. Our new dataset consisting of 83K carefully measured human psychophysical trials provide a useful reference for lifelong robustness against image degradations set by the human visual system. △ Less

Submitted 23 October, 2020; v1 submitted 27 August, 2018; originally announced August 2018.

Comments: Added optimal probability aggregation method to appendix

Comparing deep neural networks against humans: object recognition when the signal gets weaker

Authors: Robert Geirhos, David H. J. Janssen, Heiko H. Schütt, Jonas Rauber, Matthias Bethge, Felix A. Wichmann

Abstract: Human visual object recognition is typically rapid and seemingly effortless, as well as largely independent of viewpoint and object orientation. Until very recently, animate visual systems were the only ones capable of this remarkable computational feat. This has changed with the rise of a class of computer vision algorithms called deep neural networks (DNNs) that achieve human-level classificatio… ▽ More Human visual object recognition is typically rapid and seemingly effortless, as well as largely independent of viewpoint and object orientation. Until very recently, animate visual systems were the only ones capable of this remarkable computational feat. This has changed with the rise of a class of computer vision algorithms called deep neural networks (DNNs) that achieve human-level classification performance on object recognition tasks. Furthermore, a growing number of studies report similarities in the way DNNs and the human visual system process objects, suggesting that current DNNs may be good models of human visual object recognition. Yet there clearly exist important architectural and processing differences between state-of-the-art DNNs and the primate visual system. The potential behavioural consequences of these differences are not well understood. We aim to address this issue by comparing human and DNN generalisation abilities towards image degradations. We find the human visual system to be more robust to image manipulations like contrast reduction, additive noise or novel eidolon-distortions. In addition, we find progressively diverging classification error-patterns between humans and DNNs when the signal gets weaker, indicating that there may still be marked differences in the way humans and current DNNs perform visual object recognition. We envision that our findings as well as our carefully measured and freely available behavioural datasets provide a new useful benchmark for the computer vision community to improve the robustness of DNNs and a motivation for neuroscientists to search for mechanisms in the brain that could facilitate this robustness. △ Less

Submitted 11 December, 2018; v1 submitted 21 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.

Comments: updated article with reference to resulting publication (Geirhos et al, NeurIPS 2018)