MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386247690 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5749

Statistical inference on representational geometries

2023· article· en· W4386247690 on OpenAlexaff
Heiko H. Schütt, Alexander D. Kipnis, Jörn Diedrichsen, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBootstrapping (finance)InferenceVariance (accounting)Computer scienceStatistical inferenceGeneralizationContrast (vision)Statistical hypothesis testingRange (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmStatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)EconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models and brain measurements of visual processing have substantially increased in complexity in recent years. Summarizing and comparing their high-dimensional representations to each other requires specialized statistical methods. Here, we introduce new inference methods to evaluate models based on their predicted representational geometries, i.e. based on how well they match the distances or dissimilarities between the representations. Our inference methods are based on cross-validation and bootstrapping. We introduce a novel 2-factor bootstrap technique wrapped around a cross-validation procedure with analytically derived adjustments for the biases induced by 2-factor inflation of measurement noise and the choice of cross-validation folds. We validate our new inference methods using extensive simulations. We first simulate fMRI-like data based on local averages of deep neural network activations for images sampled from ecoset. In these simulations, we have full access to the true data generating process and can thus test a wide range of experiments. Additionally, we performed simulations based on subsampling data from large scale calcium imaging and fMRI experiments. These simulations are less flexible, but we are more confident that the patterns and their variability are representative of true experimental data. In all simulations, our new methods yield good estimates of the variance of model evaluations and thus valid statistical tests. In contrast, uncorrected bootstrap methods substantially overestimate variance and thus yield overly conservative tests. Also, ignoring the desired generalization to new stimuli leads to underestimated variance and thus to overly liberal tests. Similar statistical problems occur whenever other bootstrap methods aim to generalize to new stimuli and new subjects and/or are combined with cross-validation. Our new methods are available as part of the open source rsatoolbox in python at https://github.com/rsagroup/rsatoolbox.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207