How well do models of visual cortex generalize to out of distribution samples?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unit activity in particular deep neural networks (DNNs) are remarkably similar to the neuronal population responses to static images along the primate ventral visual cortex. Linear combinations of DNN unit activities are widely used to build predictive models of neuronal activity in the visual cortex. Nevertheless, prediction performance in these models is often investigated on stimulus sets consisting of everyday objects under naturalistic settings. Recent work has revealed a generalization gap in how predicting neuronal responses to synthetically generated out-of-distribution (OOD) stimuli. Here, we investigated how the recent progress in improving DNNs' object recognition generalization, as well as various DNN design choices such as architecture, learning algorithm, and datasets have impacted the generalization gap in neural predictivity. We came to a surprising conclusion that the performance on none of the common computer vision OOD object recognition benchmarks is predictive of OOD neural predictivity performance. Furthermore, we found that adversarially robust models often yield substantially higher generalization in neural predictivity, although the degree of robustness itself was not predictive of neural predictivity score. These results suggest that improving object recognition behavior on current benchmarks alone may not lead to more general models of neurons in the primate ventral visual cortex.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".