Scores on benchmarks
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.| .260 |
average_vision
rank 184
81 benchmarks |
|
| .080 |
neural_vision
rank 434
38 benchmarks |
|
| .127 |
V1
rank 374
24 benchmarks |
|
| .357 |
Marques2020
[reference]
rank 371
22 benchmarks |
|
| .498 |
V1-orientation
rank 366
7 benchmarks |
|
| .931 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or
v1
rank 223
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .797 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio
v1
rank 235
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .812 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff
v1
rank 269
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .949 |
Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth
v1
rank 16
|
|
|
1152 images
|
||
| .514 |
V1-receptive_field_size
rank 262
2 benchmarks |
|
| .638 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field
v1
[reference]
rank 225
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .390 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter
v1
[reference]
rank 245
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .336 |
V1-response_selectivity
rank 370
4 benchmarks |
|
| .594 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness
v1
[reference]
rank 299
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .749 |
Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio
v1
[reference]
rank 150
|
|
|
450 images
|
||
| .530 |
V1-spatial_frequency
rank 361
3 benchmarks |
|
| .628 |
Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf
v1
rank 253
|
|
|
2112 images
|
||
| .964 |
Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective
v1
[reference]
rank 76
|
|
|
2112 images
|
||
| .621 |
V1-surround_modulation
rank 196
1 benchmark |
|
| .621 |
Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index
v1
[reference]
rank 196
|
|
|
2304 images
|
||
| .025 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm
v1
rank 164
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .068 |
V2
rank 449
2 benchmarks |
|
| .135 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm
v1
rank 69
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .060 |
V4
rank 454
5 benchmarks |
|
| .245 |
SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls
v2
[reference]
rank 16
|
|
|
recordings from
46
sites in
V4
300 images
|
||
| .057 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm
v1
rank 80
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .066 |
IT
rank 423
7 benchmarks |
|
| .463 |
Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm
v1
rank 79
|
|
|
24 images
|
||
| .440 |
behavior_vision
rank 38
43 benchmarks |
|
| .521 |
Rajalingham2018-i2n
v2
[reference]
rank 120
|
|
|
match-to-sample task
240 images
|
||
| .318 |
Geirhos2021-error_consistency
[reference]
rank 78
17 benchmarks |
|
| .551 |
Geirhos2021colour-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 58
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .301 |
Geirhos2021contrast-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 83
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .271 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 73
|
|
|
1280 images
|
||
| .107 |
Geirhos2021edge-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 87
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .546 |
Geirhos2021eidolonI-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 48
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .470 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 77
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .465 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 56
|
|
|
480 images
|
||
| .440 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 82
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .059 |
Geirhos2021highpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 143
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .268 |
Geirhos2021lowpass-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 76
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .183 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 85
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .234 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 72
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .195 |
Geirhos2021rotation-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 84
|
|
|
960 images
|
||
| .549 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 88
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .155 |
Geirhos2021sketch-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 73
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .358 |
Geirhos2021stylized-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 84
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .253 |
Geirhos2021uniformnoise-error_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 87
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .651 |
Baker2022
rank 25
3 benchmarks |
|
| .670 |
Baker2022fragmented-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 63
|
|
|
716 images
|
||
| .374 |
Baker2022frankenstein-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 101
|
|
|
716 images
|
||
| .908 |
Baker2022inverted-accuracy_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 21
|
|
|
360 images
|
||
| .241 |
BMD2024
rank 36
4 benchmarks |
|
| .281 |
BMD2024.dotted_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 28
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .182 |
BMD2024.dotted_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 62
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .217 |
BMD2024.texture_1Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 69
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .283 |
BMD2024.texture_2Behavioral-accuracy_distance
v1
rank 33
|
|
|
100 images
|
||
| .375 |
Ferguson2024
[reference]
rank 200
14 benchmarks |
|
| .291 |
Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 130
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .352 |
Ferguson2024color-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 189
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .627 |
Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 61
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .027 |
Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 216
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .470 |
Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 92
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .437 |
Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 132
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .155 |
Ferguson2024half-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 221
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .020 |
Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 206
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .186 |
Ferguson2024lle-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 201
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .643 |
Ferguson2024llh-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 94
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .171 |
Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 175
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .961 |
Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 17
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .225 |
Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 207
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .682 |
Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta
v1
[reference]
rank 84
|
|
|
2_way_afc task
48 images
|
||
| .297 |
Hebart2023-match
v1
rank 107
|
|
|
1854 images
|
||
| .768 |
Maniquet2024
rank 22
2 benchmarks |
|
| .831 |
Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity
v1
[reference]
rank 32
|
|
|
13600 images
|
||
| .705 |
Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency
v1
[reference]
rank 35
|
|
|
13600 images
|
||
| .351 |
Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity
v1
rank 86
|
|
|
22560 images
|
||
| .392 |
engineering_vision
rank 96
25 benchmarks |
|
| .736 |
ImageNet-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 77
|
|
|
50000 images
|
||
| .434 |
ImageNet-C-top1
[reference]
rank 63
4 benchmarks |
|
| .349 |
ImageNet-C-noise-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 93
|
|
|
||
| .399 |
ImageNet-C-blur-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 46
|
|
|
||
| .481 |
ImageNet-C-weather-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 64
|
|
|
||
| .507 |
ImageNet-C-digital-top1
v2
[reference]
rank 68
|
|
|
||
| .583 |
Geirhos2021-top1
[reference]
rank 90
17 benchmarks |
|
| .977 |
Geirhos2021colour-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 82
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .839 |
Geirhos2021contrast-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 104
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .199 |
Geirhos2021cueconflict-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 157
|
|
|
1280 images
|
||
| .238 |
Geirhos2021edge-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 173
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .541 |
Geirhos2021eidolonI-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 57
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .578 |
Geirhos2021eidolonII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 44
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .583 |
Geirhos2021eidolonIII-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 75
|
|
|
480 images
|
||
| .975 |
Geirhos2021falsecolour-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 40
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .375 |
Geirhos2021highpass-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 138
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .474 |
Geirhos2021lowpass-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 71
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .656 |
Geirhos2021phasescrambling-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 69
|
|
|
640 images
|
||
| .766 |
Geirhos2021powerequalisation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 95
|
|
|
560 images
|
||
| .680 |
Geirhos2021rotation-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 123
|
|
|
960 images
|
||
| .494 |
Geirhos2021silhouette-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 136
|
|
|
160 images
|
||
| .631 |
Geirhos2021sketch-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 99
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .418 |
Geirhos2021stylized-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 92
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .488 |
Geirhos2021uniformnoise-top1
v1
[reference]
rank 103
|
|
|
800 images
|
||
| .206 |
Hermann2020
[reference]
rank 179
2 benchmarks |
|
| .254 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_bias
v1
[reference]
rank 181
|
|
|
||
| .157 |
Hermann2020cueconflict-shape_match
v1
[reference]
rank 162
|
|
|
||
How to use
from brainscore_vision import load_model
model = load_model("resnet_101_v1")
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}
}
@misc{Sanghavi_Murty_DiCarlo_2021,
title={SanghaviMurty2020},
url={osf.io/fchme},
DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/FCHME},
publisher={OSF},
author={Sanghavi, Sachi and Murty, N A R and DiCarlo, James J},
year={2021},
month={Nov}
}
@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}
}