Self-attention in vision transformers performs perceptual grouping, not attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a considerable number of studies in computer vision involve deep neural architectures called vision transformers. Visual processing in these models incorporates computational models that are claimed to implement attention mechanisms. Despite an increasing body of work that attempts to understand the role of attention mechanisms in vision transformers, their effect is largely unknown. Here, we asked if the attention mechanisms in vision transformers exhibit similar effects as those known in human visual attention. To answer this question, we revisited the attention formulation in these models and found that despite the name, computationally, these models perform a special class of relaxation labeling with similarity grouping effects. Additionally, whereas modern experimental findings reveal that human visual attention involves both feed-forward and feedback mechanisms, the purely feed-forward architecture of vision transformers suggests that attention in these models cannot have the same effects as those known in humans. To quantify these observations, we evaluated grouping performance in a family of vision transformers. Our results suggest that self-attention modules group figures in the stimuli based on similarity of visual features such as color. Also, in a singleton detection experiment as an instance of salient object detection, we studied if these models exhibit similar effects as those of feed-forward visual salience mechanisms thought to be utilized in human visual attention. We found that generally, the transformer-based attention modules assign more salience either to distractors or the ground, the opposite of both human and computational salience. Together, our study suggests that the mechanisms in vision transformers perform perceptual organization based on feature similarity and not attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".