Convolutional architectures are cortex-aligned de novo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What underlies the emergence of cortex-aligned representations in deep neural network models of vision? Earlier work suggested that shared architectural constraints were a major factor, but the success of widely varied architectures after pre-training raises critical questions about the importance of architectural constraints. Here we show that in wide networks with minimal training, architectural inductive biases have a prominent role. We examined networks with varied architectures but no pre-training and quantified their ability to predict image representations in the visual cortices of monkeys and humans. We found that cortex-aligned representations emerge in convolutional architectures that combine two key manipulations of dimensionality: compression in the spatial domain, through pooling, and expansion in the feature domain by increasing the number of channels. We further show that the inductive biases of convolutional architectures are critical for obtaining performance gains from feature expansion-dimensionality manipulations were relatively ineffective in other architectures and in convolutional models with targeted lesions. Our findings suggest that the architectural constraints of convolutional networks are sufficiently close to the constraints of biological vision to allow many aspects of cortical visual representation to emerge even before synaptic connections have been tuned through experience.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".