Abstract
To humans, a robin seems more like a bird than a bird seems like a robin, but does this asymmetry also hold for machine vision? Humans and modern vision models can match each other in accuracy while making systematically different kinds of errors, differing not in how often they fail, but in who gets mistaken for whom. We show these directional confusions reveal distinct inductive biases invisible to accuracy alone. Using matched human and deep neural network responses on a natural-image categorization task under 12 perturbation types, we quantify asymmetry in confusion matrices and link its organization to the geometry of the information--error trade-off - how efficiently, and how gracefully, a system generalizes under distortion. We find that humans exhibit broad but weak asymmetries across many class pairs, whereas deep vision models show sparser, stronger directional collapses into a few dominant categories. Robustness training reduces overall asymmetry magnitude but fails to recover this human-like distributed structure. Generative simulations further show that these two asymmetry organizations shift the trade-off geometry in opposite directions even at matched accuracy, explaining why the same scalar asymmetry score can reflect fundamentally different generalization strategies. Together, these results establish directional confusion structure as a sensitive, interpretable signature of inductive bias that accuracy-based evaluation cannot recover.
Explore similar work
Aug 10, 2026cs.CV
Human vision organizes what it sees into wholes: same-colored points group into series, similar marks cohere into categories, and shapes complete into recognizable objects. These are the Gestalt operations that visualization design builds on. Whether vision models organize visual content this way has not been systematically tested. We introduce a behavioral battery that scores models against human data from prior perception studies on four grouping tasks: mark-color odd-one-out, color-series counting, silhouette recognition, and object odd-one-out. We apply it to 45 models across five training families: supervised, self-supervised, and contrastive vision-language encoders, open-weight VLMs, and closed foundation models. The battery reveals that agreement with human responses captures aspects of perceptual organization that conventional performance metrics fail to distinguish, with several closed models exhibiting substantially lower alignment than their benchmark accuracy would suggest. Scoring against published perception data therefore gives visualization research a reusable yardstick, requiring no new user study, for auditing whether the models now entering visualization pipelines organize what they see the way their human audience does.
Sudhanva Manjunath Athreya, Sai Phani Kumar Malladi
May 12, 2026q-bio.NC
The perceptual representations supporting our ability to recognize faces remain a computational mystery. Deep neural networks offer mechanistic hypotheses for human face perception, but theoretically distinct models often make indistinguishable representational predictions for randomly sampled faces. To expose diagnostic differences among these hypotheses, we compared six neural network models sharing an architecture but trained on distinct tasks, using face pairs optimized to elicit contrasting model predictions ("controversial" pairs) alongside randomly sampled pairs. We tested model predictions against face-dissimilarity judgments from 864 human participants across stimulus sets differing in realism and pose variation. Models prioritizing high-level, invariant structures (trained via inverse rendering, face identification, or object classification) most robustly matched human judgments. Furthermore, models trained on natural images typically outperformed synthetic-trained counterparts. Together, these findings suggest that human face perception is shaped by mechanisms that infer latent causes of facial appearance, discount nuisance variation, and are tuned by natural image statistics.
Wenxuan Guo, Heiko H. Schütt, Kamila Maria Jozwik +3
Jul 10, 2026cs.CV
A striking feature of the human visual system is that it ingests visual information through a series of local foveated glimpses, rather than a single global computation. This makes human vision distinctly different from most popular computer vision models in use today, which input images globally and in a single shot. A natural question therefore is whether local, sequential vision models may provide any fundamental computational benefits in addition to being biologically more plausible than global models. In this work, we investigate this question from the perspective of visual state tracking and length generalization. Inspired by recent studies of length generalization in language models, we study the behavior of vision models trained on simple vision tasks that require the aggregation of local information across an image. Our experiments reveal that, similar to language models, vision models can learn to exploit global shortcuts and thereby fail to generalize over task length or complexity. We also show that recurrent vision policies based on strictly local perception can mitigate these failures, thereby allowing models to generalize on these tasks. Our results show that local attention may be an essential overlooked requirement for robust compositional generalization.
Pulkit Madan, Sanjay Haresh, Reza Ebrahimi +3