Not Too Generative, Not Too Discriminative: The Human Alignment Sweet Spot
Authors: Jorge Chang Ortega, Bastien Le Lan, Thomas Serre, Victor Boutin
Organizations: ANITI · Brown University, ANITI · CNRS, ANITI
Abstract
A central question in computational vision is whether human-like visual representations are better explained by discriminative or generative learning. Existing comparisons, however, often confound the learning objective with architecture, scale, and training data, leaving open whether the objective itself drives alignment. We address this confound using Joint Energy-Based Models (JEMs), which interpolate continuously between discriminative and generative training within a fixed architecture. By varying a single mixing coefficient, we isolate the effect of the learning objective and evaluate the resulting models across six human-alignment benchmarks spanning perceptual similarity, gloss perception, human response uncertainty, robustness, shape-texture cue conflict, and diagnostic feature attribution. Across this diverse suite, human alignment is consistently maximized at intermediate points of the generative-discriminative continuum, rather than at either endpoint. Hybrid JEMs combine the categorical structure induced by discriminative learning with the sensitivity to input structure induced by generative learning, yielding more human-like behavior across multiple levels of vision. These results suggest that the generative-discriminative dichotomy is the wrong axis for understanding human-aligned vision: alignment emerges not from choosing one objective over the other, but from balancing both.
Aligning large visual generative models with human feedback is often performed through pairwise preference optimization. While such approaches are conceptually simple, they fundamentally rely on annotated pairs, limiting scalability in settings where feedback is collected as independent scalar ratings. In this work, we revisit the KL-regularized alignment objective and show that the optimal policy implicitly compares each sample's reward to an instance-specific baseline that is generally intractable. We propose a threshold-guided alignment framework that replaces this oracle baseline with a data-driven global threshold estimated from empirical score statistics. This formulation turns alignment into a binary decision task on unpaired data, enabling effective optimization directly from scalar feedback. We also incorporate a confidence weighting term to emphasize samples whose scores deviate strongly from the threshold, improving sample efficiency. Experiments across both diffusion and masked generative paradigms, spanning three test sets and five reward models, show that our method consistently improves preference alignment over previous methods. These results position our threshold-guided framework as a simple yet principled alternative for aligning visual generative models without paired comparisons.
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
Artificial neural networks trained on visual tasks develop internal representations resembling those of the primate visual system, a discovery that has guided a decade of computational neuroscience. Research on building brain-aligned models has progressively embraced finer-grained learning ob- jectives, from object classification to contrastive self-supervised objectives that maximize distinc- tions among individual images. Yet the effect of learning-signal granularity on brain alignment remains largely unexamined. Here we systematically investigate how the granularity of a learning signal shapes representational alignment with human vision. We parametrically vary the number of training classes using a data-driven approach that partitions a set of training images into differ- ent numbers of categories via PCA-based splits of pretrained embeddings. We train hundreds of neural networks across convolutional and transformer architectures on these coarse classification tasks and compare their representations with human fMRI responses, macaque electrophysiology recordings, and human behavior. We find that networks trained to distinguish as few as eight broad categories learn representations that match or exceed the neural alignment of models distinguishing 1,000 classes. Even more strikingly, these coarsely trained networks align more closely with hu- man perceptual similarity judgments than all other models evaluated, including networks trained with fine-grained supervision or self-supervision as well as leading large-scale vision models. These results demonstrate that human-like visual representations can emerge from surprisingly simple learning objectives, reframing what learning signals vision may require and opening a path toward building AI systems that are more aligned with human perception.