Fine-grained knowledge about manipulable objects is well-predicted by CLIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object recognition is an important human ability that relies on distinguishing between similar objects, for example, deciding which kitchen utensil(s) to use at different stages of meal preparation. Recent work describes the fine-grained organization of knowledge about manipulable objects via the study of the constituent dimensions that are most relevant to human behavior, for example, vision, manipulation, and function-based object properties. A logical extension of this work concerns whether or not these dimensions are uniquely human, or can be approximated by deep learning. Here, we show that behavioral dimensions are well-predicted by a state-of-the-art multimodal network trained on a large and diverse set of image-text pairs - CLIP-ViT - and for the most part, can also generate good predictions of human behavior for previously unseen objects. Moreover, this model vastly outperforms comparison networks pre-trained with smaller, image-only training datasets. These results demonstrate the impressive capacity of CLIP-ViT to approximate fine-grained human object knowledge. We discuss the possible sources of this benefit relative to other tested models (e.g. multimodal image-text pre-training vs. image only pre-training, dataset size, architecture).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".