Scores on benchmarks
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.| .13 |
average_vision
rank 374
81 benchmarks |
|
| .26 |
behavior_vision
rank 174
43 benchmarks |
|
| .21 |
Geirhos2021-error_consistency
[reference]
rank 129
17 benchmarks |
|
| .55 |
Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 29
|
|
|
||
| .32 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 49
|
|
|
||
| .13 |
Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 66
|
|
|
||
| .44 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 89
|
|
|
||
| .33 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 112
|
|
|
||
| .39 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 90
|
|
|
||
| .15 |
Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 48
|
|
|
||
| .17 |
Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 116
|
|
|
||
| .16 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 91
|
|
|
||
| .13 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 109
|
|
|
||
| .18 |
Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 88
|
|
|
||
| .67 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 57
|
|
|
||
| .40 |
Baker2022
rank 81
3 benchmarks |
|
| .74 |
Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 53
|
|
|
||
| .46 |
Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 83
|
|
|
||
| .00 |
Baker2022inverted-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 58
|
|
|
||
| .13 |
BMD2024
rank 141
4 benchmarks |
|
| .15 |
BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 101
|
|
|
||
| .15 |
BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 91
|
|
|
||
| .11 |
BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 146
|
|
|
||
| .10 |
BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 152
|
|
|
||
| .46 |
Ferguson2024
[reference]
rank 117
14 benchmarks |
|
| .84 |
Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 24
|
|
|
||
| .53 |
Ferguson2024color-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 145
|
|
|
||
| 1.0 |
Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 1
|
|
|
||
| .15 |
Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 118
|
|
|
||
| .43 |
Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 104
|
|
|
||
| 1.0 |
Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 1
|
|
|
||
| .57 |
Ferguson2024half-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 105
|
|
|
||
| .06 |
Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 164
|
|
|
||
| .09 |
Ferguson2024lle-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 227
|
|
|
||
| .95 |
Ferguson2024llh-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 41
|
|
|
||
| .13 |
Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 206
|
|
|
||
| .38 |
Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 116
|
|
|
||
| .12 |
Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 231
|
|
|
||
| .17 |
Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 238
|
|
|
||
| .35 |
Hebart2023-match
v1
rank 47
|
|
|
||
| .43 |
Maniquet2024
rank 185
2 benchmarks |
|
| .38 |
Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity
v1
[reference]
rank 171
|
|
|
||
| .47 |
Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 207
|
|
|
||
| .10 |
Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity
v1
rank 177
|
|
|
||
| .32 |
engineering_vision
rank 166
25 benchmarks |
|
| .64 |
ImageNet-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 168
|
|
|
||
| .29 |
ImageNet-C-top1
[reference]
rank 134
4 benchmarks |
|
| .30 |
ImageNet-C-blur-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 110
|
|
|
||
| .38 |
ImageNet-C-weather-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 113
|
|
|
||
| .50 |
ImageNet-C-digital-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 71
|
|
|
||
| .39 |
Geirhos2021-top1
[reference]
rank 248
17 benchmarks |
|
| .22 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 104
|
|
|
||
| .25 |
Geirhos2021edge-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 164
|
|
|
||
| .41 |
Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 251
|
|
|
||
| .43 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 236
|
|
|
||
| .42 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 237
|
|
|
||
| .91 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 149
|
|
|
||
| .53 |
Geirhos2021highpass-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 58
|
|
|
||
| .48 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 233
|
|
|
||
| .66 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 148
|
|
|
||
| .56 |
Geirhos2021rotation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 198
|
|
|
||
| .35 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 231
|
|
|
||
| .50 |
Geirhos2021sketch-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 213
|
|
|
||
| .34 |
Geirhos2021stylized-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 196
|
|
|
||
| .62 |
Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 46
|
|
|
||
| .27 |
Hermann2020
[reference]
rank 104
2 benchmarks |
|
| .36 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias
v1
[reference]
rank 93
|
|
|
||
| .19 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match
v1
[reference]
rank 96
|
|
|
||
How to use
from brainscore_vision import load_model
model = load_model("pnasnet_large_pytorch")
model.start_task(...)
model.start_recording(...)
model.look_at(...)
Benchmarks bibtex
@article {Marques2021.03.01.433495,
author = {Marques, Tiago and Schrimpf, Martin and DiCarlo, James J.},
title = {Multi-scale hierarchical neural network models that bridge from single neurons in the primate primary visual cortex to object recognition behavior},
elocation-id = {2021.03.01.433495},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1101/2021.03.01.433495},
publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
abstract = {Primate visual object recognition relies on the representations in cortical areas at the top of the ventral stream that are computed by a complex, hierarchical network of neural populations. While recent work has created reasonably accurate image-computable hierarchical neural network models of those neural stages, those models do not yet bridge between the properties of individual neurons and the overall emergent behavior of the ventral stream. One reason we cannot yet do this is that individual artificial neurons in multi-stage models have not been shown to be functionally similar to individual biological neurons. Here, we took an important first step by building and evaluating hundreds of hierarchical neural network models in how well their artificial single neurons approximate macaque primary visual cortical (V1) neurons. We found that single neurons in certain models are surprisingly similar to their biological counterparts and that the distributions of single neuron properties, such as those related to orientation and spatial frequency tuning, approximately match those in macaque V1. Critically, we observed that hierarchical models with V1 stages that better match macaque V1 at the single neuron level are also more aligned with human object recognition behavior. Finally, we show that an optimized classical neuroscientific model of V1 is more functionally similar to primate V1 than all of the tested multi-stage models, suggesting room for further model improvements with tangible payoffs in closer alignment to human behavior. These results provide the first multi-stage, multi-scale models that allow our field to ask precisely how the specific properties of individual V1 neurons relate to recognition behavior.HighlightsImage-computable hierarchical neural network models can be naturally extended to create hierarchical {\textquotedblleft}brain models{\textquotedblright} that allow direct comparison with biological neural networks at multiple scales {\textendash} from single neurons, to population of neurons, to behavior.Single neurons in some of these hierarchical brain models are functionally similar to single neurons in macaque primate visual cortex (V1)Some hierarchical brain models have processing stages in which the entire distribution of artificial neuron properties closely matches the biological distributions of those same properties in macaque V1Hierarchical brain models whose V1 processing stages better match the macaque V1 stage also tend to be more aligned with human object recognition behavior at their output stageCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.},
URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.03.01.433495},
eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.03.01.433495.full.pdf},
journal = {bioRxiv}
}
@article{Cavanaugh2002,
author = {Cavanaugh, James R. and Bair, Wyeth and Movshon, J. A.},
doi = {10.1152/jn.00692.2001},
isbn = {0022-3077 (Print) 0022-3077 (Linking)},
issn = {0022-3077},
journal = {Journal of Neurophysiology},
mendeley-groups = {Benchmark effects/Done,Benchmark effects/*Surround Suppression},
number = {5},
pages = {2530--2546},
pmid = {12424292},
title = {{Nature and Interaction of Signals From the Receptive Field Center and Surround in Macaque V1 Neurons}},
url = {http://www.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/jn.00692.2001},
volume = {88},
year = {2002}
}
@article{Freeman2013,
author = {Freeman, Jeremy and Ziemba, Corey M. and Heeger, David J. and Simoncelli, E. P. and Movshon, J. A.},
doi = {10.1038/nn.3402},
issn = {10976256},
journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
number = {7},
pages = {974--981},
pmid = {23685719},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3402},
volume = {16},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Schiller1976,
author = {Schiller, P. H. and Finlay, B. L. and Volman, S. F.},
doi = {10.1152/jn.1976.39.6.1352},
issn = {0022-3077},
journal = {Journal of neurophysiology},
number = {6},
pages = {1334--1351},
pmid = {825624},
title = {{Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. III. Spatial Frequency}},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/825624},
volume = {39},
year = {1976}
}
@inproceedings{santurkar2019computer,
title={Computer Vision with a Single (Robust) Classifier},
author={Shibani Santurkar and Dimitris Tsipras and Brandon Tran and Andrew Ilyas and Logan Engstrom and Aleksander Madry},
booktitle={ArXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09453},
year={2019}
}
@Article{Kar2019,
author={Kar, Kohitij
and Kubilius, Jonas
and Schmidt, Kailyn
and Issa, Elias B.
and DiCarlo, James J.},
title={Evidence that recurrent circuits are critical to the ventral stream's execution of core object recognition behavior},
journal={Nature Neuroscience},
year={2019},
month={Jun},
day={01},
volume={22},
number={6},
pages={974-983},
abstract={Non-recurrent deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are currently the best at modeling core object recognition, a behavior that is supported by the densely recurrent primate ventral stream, culminating in the inferior temporal (IT) cortex. If recurrence is critical to this behavior, then primates should outperform feedforward-only deep CNNs for images that require additional recurrent processing beyond the feedforward IT response. Here we first used behavioral methods to discover hundreds of these `challenge' images. Second, using large-scale electrophysiology, we observed that behaviorally sufficient object identity solutions emerged { extasciitilde}30{ hinspace}ms later in the IT cortex for challenge images compared with primate performance-matched `control' images. Third, these behaviorally critical late-phase IT response patterns were poorly predicted by feedforward deep CNN activations. Notably, very-deep CNNs and shallower recurrent CNNs better predicted these late IT responses, suggesting that there is a functional equivalence between additional nonlinear transformations and recurrence. Beyond arguing that recurrent circuits are critical for rapid object identification, our results provide strong constraints for future recurrent model development.},
issn={1546-1726},
doi={10.1038/s41593-019-0392-5},
url={https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0392-5}
}
@article {Rajalingham240614,
author = {Rajalingham, Rishi and Issa, Elias B. and Bashivan, Pouya and Kar, Kohitij and Schmidt, Kailyn and DiCarlo, James J.},
title = {Large-scale, high-resolution comparison of the core visual object recognition behavior of humans, monkeys, and state-of-the-art deep artificial neural networks},
elocation-id = {240614},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1101/240614},
publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
abstract = {Primates{ extemdash}including humans{ extemdash}can typically recognize objects in visual images at a glance even in the face of naturally occurring identity-preserving image transformations (e.g. changes in viewpoint). A primary neuroscience goal is to uncover neuron-level mechanistic models that quantitatively explain this behavior by predicting primate performance for each and every image. Here, we applied this stringent behavioral prediction test to the leading mechanistic models of primate vision (specifically, deep, convolutional, artificial neural networks; ANNs) by directly comparing their behavioral signatures against those of humans and rhesus macaque monkeys. Using high-throughput data collection systems for human and monkey psychophysics, we collected over one million behavioral trials for 2400 images over 276 binary object discrimination tasks. Consistent with previous work, we observed that state-of-the-art deep, feed-forward convolutional ANNs trained for visual categorization (termed DCNNIC models) accurately predicted primate patterns of object-level confusion. However, when we examined behavioral performance for individual images within each object discrimination task, we found that all tested DCNNIC models were significantly non-predictive of primate performance, and that this prediction failure was not accounted for by simple image attributes, nor rescued by simple model modifications. These results show that current DCNNIC models cannot account for the image-level behavioral patterns of primates, and that new ANN models are needed to more precisely capture the neural mechanisms underlying primate object vision. To this end, large-scale, high-resolution primate behavioral benchmarks{ extemdash}such as those obtained here{ extemdash}could serve as direct guides for discovering such models.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Recently, specific feed-forward deep convolutional artificial neural networks (ANNs) models have dramatically advanced our quantitative understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying primate core object recognition. In this work, we tested the limits of those ANNs by systematically comparing the behavioral responses of these models with the behavioral responses of humans and monkeys, at the resolution of individual images. Using these high-resolution metrics, we found that all tested ANN models significantly diverged from primate behavior. Going forward, these high-resolution, large-scale primate behavioral benchmarks could serve as direct guides for discovering better ANN models of the primate visual system.},
URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/12/240614},
eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/12/240614.full.pdf},
journal = {bioRxiv}
}
@article{geirhos2021partial,
title={Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision},
author={Geirhos, Robert and Narayanappa, Kantharaju and Mitzkus, Benjamin and Thieringer, Tizian and Bethge, Matthias and Wichmann, Felix A and Brendel, Wieland},
journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
volume={34},
year={2021},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=QkljT4mrfs}
}
@article{BAKER2022104913,
title = {Deep learning models fail to capture the configural nature of human shape perception},
journal = {iScience},
volume = {25},
number = {9},
pages = {104913},
year = {2022},
issn = {2589-0042},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104913},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222011853},
author = {Nicholas Baker and James H. Elder},
keywords = {Biological sciences, Neuroscience, Sensory neuroscience},
abstract = {Summary
A hallmark of human object perception is sensitivity to the holistic configuration of the local shape features of an object. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) are currently the dominant models for object recognition processing in the visual cortex, but do they capture this configural sensitivity? To answer this question, we employed a dataset of animal silhouettes and created a variant of this dataset that disrupts the configuration of each object while preserving local features. While human performance was impacted by this manipulation, DCNN performance was not, indicating insensitivity to object configuration. Modifications to training and architecture to make networks more brain-like did not lead to configural processing, and none of the networks were able to accurately predict trial-by-trial human object judgements. We speculate that to match human configural sensitivity, networks must be trained to solve a broader range of object tasks beyond category recognition.}
}
@misc{ferguson_ngo_lee_dicarlo_schrimpf_2024,
title={How Well is Visual Search Asymmetry predicted by a Binary-Choice, Rapid, Accuracy-based Visual-search, Oddball-detection (BRAVO) task?},
url={osf.io/5ba3n},
DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/5BA3N},
publisher={OSF},
author={Ferguson, Michael E, Jr and Ngo, Jerry and Lee, Michael and DiCarlo, James and Schrimpf, Martin},
year={2024},
month={Jun}
}
@article {Maniquet2024.04.02.587669,
author = {Maniquet, Tim and de Beeck, Hans Op and Costantino, Andrea Ivan},
title = {Recurrent issues with deep neural network models of visual recognition},
elocation-id = {2024.04.02.587669},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1101/2024.04.02.587669},
publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/10/2024.04.02.587669},
eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/10/2024.04.02.587669.full.pdf},
journal = {bioRxiv}
}
@INPROCEEDINGS{5206848,
author={J. {Deng} and W. {Dong} and R. {Socher} and L. {Li} and {Kai Li} and {Li Fei-Fei}},
booktitle={2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition},
title={ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database},
year={2009},
volume={},
number={},
pages={248-255},
}
@ARTICLE{Hendrycks2019-di,
title = "Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions
and Perturbations",
author = "Hendrycks, Dan and Dietterich, Thomas",
abstract = "In this paper we establish rigorous benchmarks for image
classifier robustness. Our first benchmark, ImageNet-C,
standardizes and expands the corruption robustness topic,
while showing which classifiers are preferable in
safety-critical applications. Then we propose a new dataset
called ImageNet-P which enables researchers to benchmark a
classifier's robustness to common perturbations. Unlike
recent robustness research, this benchmark evaluates
performance on common corruptions and perturbations not
worst-case adversarial perturbations. We find that there are
negligible changes in relative corruption robustness from
AlexNet classifiers to ResNet classifiers. Afterward we
discover ways to enhance corruption and perturbation
robustness. We even find that a bypassed adversarial defense
provides substantial common perturbation robustness.
Together our benchmarks may aid future work toward networks
that robustly generalize.",
month = mar,
year = 2019,
archivePrefix = "arXiv",
primaryClass = "cs.LG",
eprint = "1903.12261",
url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12261"
}
@article{hermann2020origins,
title={The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks},
author={Hermann, Katherine and Chen, Ting and Kornblith, Simon},
journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
volume={33},
pages={19000--19015},
year={2020},
url={https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/db5f9f42a7157abe65bb145000b5871a-Abstract.html}
}