19 research outputs found
The Neural Representation Benchmark and its Evaluation on Brain and Machine
A key requirement for the development of effective learning representations
is their evaluation and comparison to representations we know to be effective.
In natural sensory domains, the community has viewed the brain as a source of
inspiration and as an implicit benchmark for success. However, it has not been
possible to directly test representational learning algorithms directly against
the representations contained in neural systems. Here, we propose a new
benchmark for visual representations on which we have directly tested the
neural representation in multiple visual cortical areas in macaque (utilizing
data from [Majaj et al., 2012]), and on which any computer vision algorithm
that produces a feature space can be tested. The benchmark measures the
effectiveness of the neural or machine representation by computing the
classification loss on the ordered eigendecomposition of a kernel matrix
[Montavon et al., 2011]. In our analysis we find that the neural representation
in visual area IT is superior to visual area V4. In our analysis of
representational learning algorithms, we find that three-layer models approach
the representational performance of V4 and the algorithm in [Le et al., 2012]
surpasses the performance of V4. Impressively, we find that a recent supervised
algorithm [Krizhevsky et al., 2012] achieves performance comparable to that of
IT for an intermediate level of image variation difficulty, and surpasses IT at
a higher difficulty level. We believe this result represents a major milestone:
it is the first learning algorithm we have found that exceeds our current
estimate of IT representation performance. We hope that this benchmark will
assist the community in matching the representational performance of visual
cortex and will serve as an initial rallying point for further correspondence
between representations derived in brains and machines.Comment: The v1 version contained incorrectly computed kernel analysis curves
and KA-AUC values for V4, IT, and the HT-L3 models. They have been corrected
in this versio
Deep Neural Networks Rival the Representation of Primate IT Cortex for Core Visual Object Recognition
The primate visual system achieves remarkable visual object recognition
performance even in brief presentations and under changes to object exemplar,
geometric transformations, and background variation (a.k.a. core visual object
recognition). This remarkable performance is mediated by the representation
formed in inferior temporal (IT) cortex. In parallel, recent advances in
machine learning have led to ever higher performing models of object
recognition using artificial deep neural networks (DNNs). It remains unclear,
however, whether the representational performance of DNNs rivals that of the
brain. To accurately produce such a comparison, a major difficulty has been a
unifying metric that accounts for experimental limitations such as the amount
of noise, the number of neural recording sites, and the number trials, and
computational limitations such as the complexity of the decoding classifier and
the number of classifier training examples. In this work we perform a direct
comparison that corrects for these experimental limitations and computational
considerations. As part of our methodology, we propose an extension of "kernel
analysis" that measures the generalization accuracy as a function of
representational complexity. Our evaluations show that, unlike previous
bio-inspired models, the latest DNNs rival the representational performance of
IT cortex on this visual object recognition task. Furthermore, we show that
models that perform well on measures of representational performance also
perform well on measures of representational similarity to IT and on measures
of predicting individual IT multi-unit responses. Whether these DNNs rely on
computational mechanisms similar to the primate visual system is yet to be
determined, but, unlike all previous bio-inspired models, that possibility
cannot be ruled out merely on representational performance grounds.Comment: 35 pages, 12 figures, extends and expands upon arXiv:1301.353