Scores on benchmarks

from scoring API
Model rank shown below is with respect to all public models.
.146 average_vision rank 260
138 benchmarks
.146
0
ceiling
best
median
.182 neural_vision rank 160
77 benchmarks
.182
0
ceiling
best
median
.247 V1 rank 150
33 benchmarks
.247
0
ceiling
best
median
.144 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1 rank 170
2 benchmarks
.144
0
ceiling
best
median
.135 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-rdm v1 [reference] rank 131
.135
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.154 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V1-ridge v1 [reference] rank 172
.154
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.218 FreemanZiemba2013.V1-pls v3 [reference] rank 336
.218
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 102 sites in V1
315 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.258 Hebart2023_fmri.V1-ridgecv v3 rank 167
.258
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.033 Li2026.V1 rank 148
2 benchmarks
.033
0
ceiling
best
median
.000 Li2026.V1-rdm v1 [reference] rank 139
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.066 Li2026.V1-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 147
.066
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.569 Marques2020 [reference] rank 394
22 benchmarks
.569
0
ceiling
best
median
.725 V1-orientation rank 375
7 benchmarks
.725
0
ceiling
best
median
.855 Marques2020_DeValois1982-pref_or v1 rank 357
.855
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.496 Marques2020_Ringach2002-circular_variance v1 rank 431
.496
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.865 Marques2020_Ringach2002-cv_bandwidth_ratio v1 rank 186
.865
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.833 Marques2020_Ringach2002-opr_cv_diff v1 rank 273
.833
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.487 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_bandwidth v1 rank 407
.487
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.986 Marques2020_Ringach2002-or_selective v1 rank 103
.986
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.552 Marques2020_Ringach2002-orth_pref_ratio v1 rank 397
.552
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.198 V1-receptive_field_size rank 421
2 benchmarks
.198
0
ceiling
best
median
.085 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-grating_summation_field v1 [reference] rank 420
.085
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.311 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_diameter v1 [reference] rank 383
.311
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.375 V1-response_magnitude rank 427
3 benchmarks
.375
0
ceiling
best
median
.274 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_noise v1 [reference] rank 423
.274
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.163 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-max_texture v1 [reference] rank 430
.163
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.689 Marques2020_Ringach2002-max_dc v1 rank 415
.689
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.483 V1-response_selectivity rank 396
4 benchmarks
.483
0
ceiling
best
median
.931 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_selectivity v1 [reference] rank 8
.931
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.532 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_sparseness v1 [reference] rank 371
.532
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.270 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_variance_ratio v1 [reference] rank 444
.270
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.198 Marques2020_Ringach2002-modulation_ratio v1 rank 418
.198
0
ceiling
best
median

1152 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.793 V1-spatial_frequency rank 193
3 benchmarks
.793
0
ceiling
best
median
.721 Marques2020_DeValois1982-peak_sf v1 rank 190
.721
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.662 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_bandwidth v1 [reference] rank 362
.662
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.997 Marques2020_Schiller1976-sf_selective v1 [reference] rank 21
.997
0
ceiling
best
median

2112 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.478 V1-surround_modulation rank 347
1 benchmark
.478
0
ceiling
best
median
.478 Marques2020_Cavanaugh2002-surround_suppression_index v1 [reference] rank 347
.478
0
ceiling
best
median

2304 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.932 V1-texture_modulation rank 10
2 benchmarks
.932
0
ceiling
best
median
.925 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-abs_texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 20
.925
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.939 Marques2020_FreemanZiemba2013-texture_modulation_index v1 [reference] rank 12
.939
0
ceiling
best
median

450 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.241 Papale2025.V1-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 129
.241
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.321 Coggan2024_fMRI.V1-rdm v1 rank 18
.321
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.194 Zerbe2026_fmri.V1 [reference] rank 148
3 benchmarks
.194
0
ceiling
best
median
.211 Zerbe2026_fmri.V1-ood-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 136
.211
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.114 Zerbe2026_fmri.V1-rdm-pearson v1 [reference] rank 128
.114
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.256 Zerbe2026_fmri.V1-tau-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 155
.256
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.175 V2 rank 165
10 benchmarks
.175
0
ceiling
best
median
.136 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2 rank 169
2 benchmarks
.136
0
ceiling
best
median
.134 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-rdm v1 [reference] rank 156
.134
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.138 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V2-ridge v1 [reference] rank 163
.138
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.271 FreemanZiemba2013.V2-pls v3 [reference] rank 89
.271
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 103 sites in V2
315 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.220 Hebart2023_fmri.V2-ridgecv v3 rank 180
.220
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.026 Li2026.V2 rank 147
2 benchmarks
.026
0
ceiling
best
median
.000 Li2026.V2-rdm v1 [reference] rank 114
.000
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.051 Li2026.V2-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 147
.051
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.226 Coggan2024_fMRI.V2-rdm v1 rank 54
.226
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.172 Zerbe2026_fmri.V2 [reference] rank 144
3 benchmarks
.172
0
ceiling
best
median
.197 Zerbe2026_fmri.V2-ood-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 138
.197
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.107 Zerbe2026_fmri.V2-rdm-pearson v1 [reference] rank 136
.107
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.212 Zerbe2026_fmri.V2-tau-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 149
.212
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.145 V4 rank 272
16 benchmarks
.145
0
ceiling
best
median
.117 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4 rank 161
2 benchmarks
.117
0
ceiling
best
median
.108 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-rdm v1 [reference] rank 161
.108
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.127 Allen2022_fmri_surface.V4-ridge v1 [reference] rank 160
.127
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.105 Hebart2023_fmri.V4-ridgecv v3 rank 178
.105
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.046 Li2026.V4 rank 148
2 benchmarks
.046
0
ceiling
best
median
.068 Li2026.V4-rdm v1 [reference] rank 91
.068
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.025 Li2026.V4-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 148
.025
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.105 MajajHong2015public.V4-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 10
.105
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.316 MajajHong2015.V4-pls v4 [reference] rank 500
.316
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in V4
2560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.177 Papale2025.V4-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 144
.177
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.319 Sanghavi2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 463
.319
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 47 sites in V4
5760 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.231 SanghaviJozwik2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 458
.231
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 50 sites in V4
4916 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.124 SanghaviMurty2020.V4-pls v2 [reference] rank 442
.124
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 46 sites in V4
300 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.058 Coggan2024_fMRI.V4-rdm v1 rank 106
.058
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.140 Zerbe2026_fmri.V4 [reference] rank 146
3 benchmarks
.140
0
ceiling
best
median
.179 Zerbe2026_fmri.V4-ood-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 143
.179
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.073 Zerbe2026_fmri.V4-rdm-pearson v1 [reference] rank 141
.073
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.167 Zerbe2026_fmri.V4-tau-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 146
.167
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.160 IT rank 204
18 benchmarks
.160
0
ceiling
best
median
.058 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT rank 168
2 benchmarks
.058
0
ceiling
best
median
.044 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-rdm v1 [reference] rank 171
.044
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.072 Allen2022_fmri_surface.IT-ridge v1 [reference] rank 155
.072
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.213 Bracci2019.anteriorVTC-rdm v1 rank 206
.213
0
ceiling
best
median

27 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.066 Gifford2022.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 159
.066
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.025 Hebart2023_fmri.IT-ridgecv v3 rank 172
.025
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.060 Li2026.IT rank 148
2 benchmarks
.060
0
ceiling
best
median
.080 Li2026.IT-rdm v1 [reference] rank 141
.080
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.039 Li2026.IT-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 148
.039
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.180 MajajHong2015.IT-pls v4 [reference] rank 488
.180
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 168 sites in IT
2560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.217 MajajHong2015public.IT-reverse_pls v4 [reference] rank 13
.217
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.101 Papale2025.IT-ridgecv v3 [reference] rank 153
.101
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.242 Sanghavi2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 450
.242
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 88 sites in IT
5760 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.182 SanghaviJozwik2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 459
.182
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 26 sites in IT
4916 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.140 SanghaviMurty2020.IT-pls v2 [reference] rank 448
.140
0
ceiling
best
median
recordings from 29 sites in IT
300 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.707 Coggan2024_fMRI.IT-rdm v1 rank 24
.707
0
ceiling
best
median

24 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.046 Zerbe2026_fmri.IT [reference] rank 149
3 benchmarks
.046
0
ceiling
best
median
.023 Zerbe2026_fmri.IT-ood-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 144
.023
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.060 Zerbe2026_fmri.IT-rdm-pearson v1 [reference] rank 144
.060
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.054 Zerbe2026_fmri.IT-tau-ridgecv v1 [reference] rank 142
.054
0
ceiling
best
median
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.110 behavior_vision rank 316
61 benchmarks
.110
0
ceiling
best
median
.046 Rajalingham2018-i2n v2 [reference] rank 496
.046
0
ceiling
best
median
match-to-sample task
240 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.385 Ferguson2024 [reference] rank 240
14 benchmarks
.385
0
ceiling
best
median
.162 Ferguson2024circle_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 239
.162
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.877 Ferguson2024color-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 104
.877
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.516 Ferguson2024convergence-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 113
.516
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.027 Ferguson2024eighth-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 273
.027
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.767 Ferguson2024gray_easy-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 73
.767
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.298 Ferguson2024gray_hard-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 221
.298
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.119 Ferguson2024half-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 287
.119
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.137 Ferguson2024juncture-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 166
.137
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.168 Ferguson2024lle-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 250
.168
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.303 Ferguson2024llh-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 215
.303
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.510 Ferguson2024quarter-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 101
.510
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.092 Ferguson2024round_f-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 280
.092
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.409 Ferguson2024round_v-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 180
.409
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
1.0 Ferguson2024tilted_line-value_delta v1 [reference] rank 1
1.0
0
ceiling
best
median
2_way_afc task
48 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.041 Hebart2023-match v1 rank 295
.041
0
ceiling
best
median

1854 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.520 Maniquet2024 rank 168
2 benchmarks
.520
0
ceiling
best
median
.749 Maniquet2024-confusion_similarity v1 [reference] rank 64
.749
0
ceiling
best
median

13600 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.292 Maniquet2024-tasks_consistency v1 [reference] rank 307
.292
0
ceiling
best
median

13600 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9
.000 Coggan2024_behavior-ConditionWiseAccuracySimilarity v1 rank 300
.000
0
ceiling
best
median

22560 images
sample 0 sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7 sample 8 sample 9

How to use

from brainscore_vision import load_model
model = load_model("gabor_filter_mean_abs_4x4_v2")
model.start_task(...)
model.start_recording(...)
model.look_at(...)

Brain Encoding Response Generator (BERG)

Through the BERG you can easily generate neural responses to images of your choice using any Brain-Score vision model.

For more information on how to use BERG, see the documentation and tutorial.

Historical trend

Hover the line for a preview; click the chart to pin that month in the sidebar. While pinned, hover does not change it -- use Release or Esc to clear.

Benchmarks BibTeX

@article{allen_massive_2022,
    title = {A massive 7T fMRI dataset to bridge cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence},
    volume = {25},
    issn = {1097-6256},
    doi = {10.1038/s41593-021-00962-x},
    journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
    author = {Allen, Emily J. and St-Yves, Ghislain and Wu, Yihan and Breedlove, Jesse L.
              and Prince, Jacob S. and Dowdle, Logan T. and Nau, Matthias and Caron, Brad
              and Pestilli, Franco and Charest, Ian and Hutchinson, J. Benjamin
              and Naselaris, Thomas and Kay, Kendrick},
    year = {2022},
    pages = {116--126},
}
        @Article{Freeman2013,
                author={Freeman, Jeremy
                and Ziemba, Corey M.
                and Heeger, David J.
                and Simoncelli, Eero P.
                and Movshon, J. Anthony},
                title={A functional and perceptual signature of the second visual area in primates},
                journal={Nature Neuroscience},
                year={2013},
                month={Jul},
                day={01},
                volume={16},
                number={7},
                pages={974-981},
                abstract={The authors examined neuronal responses in V1 and V2 to synthetic texture stimuli that replicate higher-order statistical dependencies found in natural images. V2, but not V1, responded differentially to these textures, in both macaque (single neurons) and human (fMRI). Human detection of naturalistic structure in the same images was predicted by V2 responses, suggesting a role for V2 in representing natural image structure.},
                issn={1546-1726},
                doi={10.1038/nn.3402},
                url={https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3402}
                }
        @article{li2026triplen,
    title = {Triple-N dataset: large-scale fMRI-guided dense recordings of nonhuman
             primate neural responses to natural scenes},
    author = {Li, Yipeng and Liu, Xieyi and Li, Wanru and Yang, Jia and Gong, Baoqi
              and Jin, Wei and Gong, Zhengxin and Wang, Kesheng and Luo, Jingqiu
              and Zhao, Zishuo and Bao, Pinglei},
    journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
    year = {2026},
    doi = {10.1038/s41593-026-02322-z},
    url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-026-02322-z},
}
        @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}
            }
        @article{papale_extensive_2025,
	title = {An extensive dataset of spiking activity to reveal the syntax of the ventral stream},
	volume = {113},
	issn = {08966273},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S089662732400881X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.neuron.2024.12.003},
	journal = {Neuron},
	author = {Papale, Paolo and Wang, Feng and Self, Matthew W. and Roelfsema, Pieter R.},
	year = {2025},
}
        @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}
}
        @inproceedings{zerbe_laion-fmri_2026,
      title = {{LAION}-{fMRI}: A densely sampled 7T-fMRI dataset providing broad coverage of natural image diversity},
      author = {Zerbe, Josefine and Roth, Johannes and Mell, Maggie Mae and Herholz, Peer and Knapen, Tomas and Hebart, Martin N.},
      year = {2026},
      booktitle = {Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting},
  }
        @article{muzellec_reverse_2026,
      title = {Reverse predictivity for bidirectional comparison of neural networks and biological brains},
      volume = {8},
      issn = {2522-5839},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-026-01204-0},
      doi = {10.1038/s42256-026-01204-0},
      number = {3},
      journal = {Nature Machine Intelligence},
      author = {Muzellec, Sabine and Kar, Kohitij},
      month = mar,
      year = {2026},
      pages = {474--488},
}
        @article {Majaj13402,
            author = {Majaj, Najib J. and Hong, Ha and Solomon, Ethan A. and DiCarlo, James J.},
            title = {Simple Learned Weighted Sums of Inferior Temporal Neuronal Firing Rates Accurately Predict Human Core Object Recognition Performance},
            volume = {35},
            number = {39},
            pages = {13402--13418},
            year = {2015},
            doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5181-14.2015},
            publisher = {Society for Neuroscience},
            abstract = {To go beyond qualitative models of the biological substrate of object recognition, we ask: can a single ventral stream neuronal linking hypothesis quantitatively account for core object recognition performance over a broad range of tasks? We measured human performance in 64 object recognition tests using thousands of challenging images that explore shape similarity and identity preserving object variation. We then used multielectrode arrays to measure neuronal population responses to those same images in visual areas V4 and inferior temporal (IT) cortex of monkeys and simulated V1 population responses. We tested leading candidate linking hypotheses and control hypotheses, each postulating how ventral stream neuronal responses underlie object recognition behavior. Specifically, for each hypothesis, we computed the predicted performance on the 64 tests and compared it with the measured pattern of human performance. All tested hypotheses based on low- and mid-level visually evoked activity (pixels, V1, and V4) were very poor predictors of the human behavioral pattern. However, simple learned weighted sums of distributed average IT firing rates exactly predicted the behavioral pattern. More elaborate linking hypotheses relying on IT trial-by-trial correlational structure, finer IT temporal codes, or ones that strictly respect the known spatial substructures of IT ({	extquotedblleft}face patches{	extquotedblright}) did not improve predictive power. Although these results do not reject those more elaborate hypotheses, they suggest a simple, sufficient quantitative model: each object recognition task is learned from the spatially distributed mean firing rates (100 ms) of \~{}60,000 IT neurons and is executed as a simple weighted sum of those firing rates.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We sought to go beyond qualitative models of visual object recognition and determine whether a single neuronal linking hypothesis can quantitatively account for core object recognition behavior. To achieve this, we designed a database of images for evaluating object recognition performance. We used multielectrode arrays to characterize hundreds of neurons in the visual ventral stream of nonhuman primates and measured the object recognition performance of \>100 human observers. Remarkably, we found that simple learned weighted sums of firing rates of neurons in monkey inferior temporal (IT) cortex accurately predicted human performance. Although previous work led us to expect that IT would outperform V4, we were surprised by the quantitative precision with which simple IT-based linking hypotheses accounted for human behavior.},
            issn = {0270-6474},
            URL = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402},
            eprint = {https://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/39/13402.full.pdf},
            journal = {Journal of Neuroscience}}
        @misc{Sanghavi_DiCarlo_2021,
  title={Sanghavi2020},
  url={osf.io/chwdk},
  DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/CHWDK},
  publisher={OSF},
  author={Sanghavi, Sachi and DiCarlo, James J},
  year={2021},
  month={Nov}
}
        @misc{Sanghavi_Jozwik_DiCarlo_2021,
  title={SanghaviJozwik2020},
  url={osf.io/fhy36},
  DOI={10.17605/OSF.IO/FHY36},
  publisher={OSF},
  author={Sanghavi, Sachi and Jozwik, Kamila M and DiCarlo, James J},
  year={2021},
  month={Nov}
}
        @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{gifford_large_2022,
	title = {A large and rich {EEG} dataset for modeling human visual object recognition},
	volume = {264},
	issn = {10538119},
	url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1053811922008758},
	doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119754},
	journal = {NeuroImage},
	author = {Gifford, Alessandro T. and Dwivedi, Kshitij and Roig, Gemma and Cichy, Radoslaw M.},
	year = {2022},
}
        @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}
}
        @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}
        }
        

metadata.yaml · Schema v2.0

This annotated template shows the structure of a model’s metadata.yaml. Each section groups related information; comments explain the expected types and allowed values.

Required: schema_version, domain, and models keyed by model identifier. Other fields may be omitted or set to null when undocumented. Use [] for empty lists.

The values below are illustrative, not this model’s metadata. Metadata changes are proposed in repository pull requests and published after merge.

# metadata.yaml — proposed schema v2.0
# Example values below are illustrative, not metadata for a real model.
# Required: schema_version, domain, and models keyed by exact model identifier.
# Other fields may be omitted or set to null when undocumented.
# Use [] for an empty list. Do not use "unknown" as a numeric/boolean value.
# Keep identifiers exact, including checkpoint suffixes.

schema_version: "2.0"  # String; quote the version.

domain: vision  # Must match the repository's registered domain.
models:
  example-model:
    sources:
      example-source:
        kind: other  # paper | huggingface | other | unreviewed
        url: https://example.org/model-card
        citation: Illustrative source, not evidence for a real model.
    model:
      display_name: Example model
      version: null  # String, e.g. "1.0".
      architecture:
        family: convolutional_neural_network  # String describing the architecture family.
        description: A convolutional model trained for image classification.
      parameter_count: 25000000  # Nonnegative integer; count, not "25M".
      parameter_count_exact: false  # Boolean; false means the count is approximate.
      trainable_layers: "All layers"  # Text; can describe partial fine-tuning.
      recurrent: false  # Boolean.
      input_resolution:
        channels: 3  # Nonnegative integer.
        height: 224  # Nonnegative integer, pixels.
        width: 224  # Nonnegative integer, pixels.
      visual_degrees: null  # Nonnegative number; vision models only.
      visual_degrees_description: null  # Text explaining the field of view.
      supervision:
        type: supervised  # String, e.g. supervised, self_supervised, weakly_supervised.
        description: Trained using class labels.

    training:
      process: null  # Text describing the training procedure.
      objective: null  # Text describing what the model learns.
      loss: null  # Text, e.g. "Cross-entropy".
      learning_rate: null  # Text; supports schedules, e.g. "0.1 with cosine decay".
      batch_size: null  # Text; supports different values across training stages.
      preprocessing: null  # Text describing normalization and augmentation.

    data:
      summary: null  # Text summarizing the data used.
      training_datasets:
        - identifier: example-training-set  # Optional dataset identifier.
          name: Example training set  # Required for each dataset entry.
          role: training  # training | pretraining | fine_tuning
          description: null  # Text describing this dataset's use.

    eval:
      test_datasets: []  # Entries: {identifier: optional, name: required, description: optional}.
      validation_datasets: []  # Same entry structure; role is implied by the list.

    io:
      modality: image  # String, e.g. image or text.
      interface: null  # Text describing the model's interface.
      input_format: null  # Text describing accepted inputs and their shape.
      output_format: null  # Text describing returned values and their shape.
      tokenizer: null  # Text; language models, where applicable.

    provenance:
      weights_provider: null  # Organization or repository providing the weights.
      checkpoint: null  # Exact checkpoint identifier.
      source_url: null  # Link to the original code or model card.
      curation_confidence: null  # Text summarizing confidence in the curated record.

    legal:
      license: null  # License identifier or full terms; distinguish code and weights.

    people:
      creators: []  # List of names, e.g. ["Example Researcher"].
      organizations: []  # List of organization names.

    use:
      applications: []  # List of intended applications (strings).
      users: []  # List of intended user groups (strings).
      limitations: []  # List of known limitations (strings).
      biases: []  # List of known biases (strings).

    lineage:
      base_models:
        - identifier: example-base  # Optional; exact identifier in the same domain.
          name: Example base model  # Required for each base-model entry.
          relationship: fine_tuned_from  # variant_of | fine_tuned_from | derived_from

    # Optional verification records. Omit this section if no verification is recorded.
    # Paths refer to fields in this YAML document, not database columns.
    assertions:
      - path: /model/architecture
        status: probable  # verified | probable | uncertain | undocumented
        sources: [example-source]  # References the structured sources above.

Layer commitment

Region Layer
V1 gabor_mean_abs_foveated32_48_64
V2 gabor_mean_abs_foveated32_48_64
V4 gabor_mean_abs_foveated32_48_64
IT gabor_mean_abs_foveated32_48_64

Visual angle

Not documented

Drives stimulus scaling. A null here means benchmarks run on the default.