-
Dimensions underlying the representational alignment of deep neural networks with humans
Authors:
Florian P. Mahner,
Lukas Muttenthaler,
Umut Güçlü,
Martin N. Hebart
Abstract:
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 repres…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
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.
-
VICE: Variational Interpretable Concept Embeddings
Authors:
Lukas Muttenthaler,
Charles Y. Zheng,
Patrick McClure,
Robert A. Vandermeulen,
Martin N. Hebart,
Francisco Pereira
Abstract:
A central goal in the cognitive sciences is the development of numerical models for mental representations of object concepts. This paper introduces Variational Interpretable Concept Embeddings (VICE), an approximate Bayesian method for embedding object concepts in a vector space using data collected from humans in a triplet odd-one-out task. VICE uses variational inference to obtain sparse, non-n…
▽ More
A central goal in the cognitive sciences is the development of numerical models for mental representations of object concepts. This paper introduces Variational Interpretable Concept Embeddings (VICE), an approximate Bayesian method for embedding object concepts in a vector space using data collected from humans in a triplet odd-one-out task. VICE uses variational inference to obtain sparse, non-negative representations of object concepts with uncertainty estimates for the embedding values. These estimates are used to automatically select the dimensions that best explain the data. We derive a PAC learning bound for VICE that can be used to estimate generalization performance or determine a sufficient sample size for experimental design. VICE rivals or outperforms its predecessor, SPoSE, at predicting human behavior in the triplet odd-one-out task. Furthermore, VICE's object representations are more reproducible and consistent across random initializations, highlighting the unique advantage of using VICE for deriving interpretable embeddings from human behavior.
△ Less
Submitted 6 October, 2022; v1 submitted 2 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Semantic features of object concepts generated with GPT-3
Authors:
Hannes Hansen,
Martin N. Hebart
Abstract:
Semantic features have been playing a central role in investigating the nature of our conceptual representations. Yet the enormous time and effort required to empirically sample and norm features from human raters has restricted their use to a limited set of manually curated concepts. Given recent promising developments with transformer-based language models, here we asked whether it was possible…
▽ More
Semantic features have been playing a central role in investigating the nature of our conceptual representations. Yet the enormous time and effort required to empirically sample and norm features from human raters has restricted their use to a limited set of manually curated concepts. Given recent promising developments with transformer-based language models, here we asked whether it was possible to use such models to automatically generate meaningful lists of properties for arbitrary object concepts and whether these models would produce features similar to those found in humans. To this end, we probed a GPT-3 model to generate semantic features for 1,854 objects and compared automatically-generated features to existing human feature norms. GPT-3 generated many more features than humans, yet showed a similar distribution in the types of generated features. Generated feature norms rivaled human norms in predicting similarity, relatedness, and category membership, while variance partitioning demonstrated that these predictions were driven by similar variance in humans and GPT-3. Together, these results highlight the potential of large language models to capture important facets of human knowledge and yield a new approach for automatically generating interpretable feature sets, thus drastically expanding the potential use of semantic features in psychological and linguistic studies.
△ Less
Submitted 10 May, 2022; v1 submitted 8 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Revealing interpretable object representations from human behavior
Authors:
Charles Y. Zheng,
Francisco Pereira,
Chris I. Baker,
Martin N. Hebart
Abstract:
To study how mental object representations are related to behavior, we estimated sparse, non-negative representations of objects using human behavioral judgments on images representative of 1,854 object categories. These representations predicted a latent similarity structure between objects, which captured most of the explainable variance in human behavioral judgments. Individual dimensions in th…
▽ More
To study how mental object representations are related to behavior, we estimated sparse, non-negative representations of objects using human behavioral judgments on images representative of 1,854 object categories. These representations predicted a latent similarity structure between objects, which captured most of the explainable variance in human behavioral judgments. Individual dimensions in the low-dimensional embedding were found to be highly reproducible and interpretable as conveying degrees of taxonomic membership, functionality, and perceptual attributes. We further demonstrated the predictive power of the embeddings for explaining other forms of human behavior, including categorization, typicality judgments, and feature ratings, suggesting that the dimensions reflect human conceptual representations of objects beyond the specific task.
△ Less
Submitted 9 January, 2019;
originally announced January 2019.
-
The Same Analysis Approach: Practical protection against the pitfalls of novel neuroimaging analysis methods
Authors:
Kai Görgen,
Martin N. Hebart,
Carsten Allefeld,
John-Dylan Haynes
Abstract:
Standard neuroimaging data analysis based on traditional principles of experimental design, modelling, and statistical inference is increasingly complemented by novel analysis methods, driven e.g. by machine learning methods. While these novel approaches provide new insights into neuroimaging data, they often have unexpected properties, generating a growing literature on possible pitfalls. We prop…
▽ More
Standard neuroimaging data analysis based on traditional principles of experimental design, modelling, and statistical inference is increasingly complemented by novel analysis methods, driven e.g. by machine learning methods. While these novel approaches provide new insights into neuroimaging data, they often have unexpected properties, generating a growing literature on possible pitfalls. We propose to meet this challenge by adopting a habit of systematic testing of experimental design, analysis procedures, and statistical inference. Specifically, we suggest to apply the analysis method used for experimental data also to aspects of the experimental design, simulated confounds, simulated null data, and control data. We stress the importance of kee** the analysis method the same in main and test analyses, because only this way possible confounds and unexpected properties can be reliably detected and avoided. We describe and discuss this Same Analysis Approach in detail, and demonstrate it in two worked examples using multivariate decoding. With these examples, we reveal two sources of error: A mismatch between counterbalancing (crossover designs) and cross-validation which leads to systematic below-chance accuracies, and linear decoding of a nonlinear effect, a difference in variance.
Highlights: 1. Traditional design principles can be unsuitable when combined with cross-validation; 2. This can explain both inflated accuracies and below-chance accuracies; 3. We propose the novel "same analysis approach" (SAA) for checking analysis pipelines; 4. The principle of SAA is to perform additional analyses using the same analysis; 5. SAA analysis should be performed on design variables, control data, and simulations
△ Less
Submitted 26 September, 2018; v1 submitted 20 March, 2017;
originally announced March 2017.
