Aligning machine and human visual representations across abstraction levels

11 citations

Abstract

Deep neural networks have achieved success across a wide range of applications, including as models of human behaviour and neural representations in vision tasks. However, neural network training and human learning differ in fundamental ways, and neural networks often fail to generalize as robustly as humans do, raising questions regarding the similarity of their underlying representations. We need to determine what is missing for modern learning systems to exhibit more human-aligned behaviour. Here we highlight a key misalignment between vision models and humans: whereas human conceptual knowledge is hierarchically organized from fine- to coarse-scale distinctions (for example, ref. 5), model representations do not accurately capture all these levels of abstraction. To address this misalignment, we first train a teacher model to imitate human judgements, then transfer human-aligned structure from its representations to refine the representations of pretrained state-of-the-art vision foundation models via fine-tuning. These human-aligned models more accurately approximate human behaviour and uncertainty across a wide range of similarity tasks, including a dataset of human judgements spanning multiple levels of semantic abstractions. They also perform better on a diverse set of machine learning tasks, increasing generalization and out-of-distribution robustness. Thus, infusing neural networks with additional human knowledge yields a best-of-both-worlds representation that is both more consistent with human cognitive judgements and more practically useful, paving the way towards more robust, interpretable and human-aligned artificial intelligence systems.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.