Zero-shot evaluations expose structured generalization limits in predictive models of the brain
Wang, R.; Deb, M.; Abate, A.; Dipani, A.; Dudipala, K. R.; Chillarege, S.; Ravikanti, K.; Li, Y.; Al-Tahan, H.; Koushik, R.; Mieczkowski, E.; Fung, H.; Kanwisher, N.; Ratan Murty, N. A.
Show abstract
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) can predict neural responses to natural images with remarkable accuracy, making them promising models of human vision. However, prediction scores alone reveal little about what computations these models have captured or how well they generalize beyond the images on which they are trained. Here, we introduce a principled zero-shot model evaluation framework in which ANN-based encoding models are frozen before being tested on not just held out images but entirely new datasets. Our strongest tests repurpose decades of cognitive neuroscience experiments as diagnostic benchmarks for identifying which computations current models capture and where they fail. To implement this framework we built encoding models of human category-selective regions (FFA, PPA, and EBA) using several pretrained ANNs and evaluated these fixed models across 7 independent fMRI datasets and 31 cognitive experiments from 10 published studies. This framework revealed three broad patterns. First, zero-shot evaluations exposed systematic limits to model predictivity that were largely hidden by standard within-dataset cross-validation. These limits were structured varying across brain regions and model classes and depending strongly on the similarity between the images used to build and test the models. Second, current models reproduced some, but not all, classical findings from cognitive neuroscience, providing a diagnosis of the computations that current models have yet to capture. Finally, models that performed well on prediction tests also tended to succeed at reproducing cognitive neuroscience findings, suggesting that prediction and explanation are closely linked. Unlike prediction scores however, cognitive tests help diagnose where and why models fail. Together, the zero-shot evaluation framework provides a scalable and unified approach for evaluating brain models across prediction and cognitive neuroscience tests, which can help us better understand what current models capture and what still remains to be explained.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Conscious perception of natural images is constrained by category-related visual features 95%
- Unsupervised learning as a computational principle works in visual learning of natural scenes, but not of artificial stimuli 94%
- Limited correspondence in visual representation between the human brain and convolutional neural networks 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Model metamers illuminate divergences between biological and artificial neural networks 93%
- Meta-matching: a simple framework to translate phenotypic predictive models from big to small data 93%
- A large-scale, standardized physiological survey reveals higher order coding throughout the mouse visual cortex 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.