Formalizing the Binding Problem

Representations of the world, arguably, contain information about features (e.g. something is blue, something is a circle) but also information about which features are part of the same object (e.g. the circle is blue), which we call binding information. Any system with the ability to understand scenes with multiple objects must be able to solve the binding problem: it needs to know which features belong together. However, despite work showing that Vision Transformers (ViTs) know which patches belong together, it is not known whether current deep learning models learn to exhibit binding information, i.e., for features. We may believe that there is not much binding information, after all misattributing features to wrong objects is a common failure of ViT-based architectures, especially in scenes with objects sharing features. Here we formalize the binding problem with an information-theoretic approach, and introduce a probing method to measure binding information in model representations. We perform experiments on ViTs, measuring binding from different components of the architecture, such as the image summary token [CLS] or the spatial tokens. We use datasets with different binding challenges, such as feature sharing, occlusion, and natural features, while comparing the performance of several pre-trained ViTs. Overall, our research demonstrates binding as a key ingredient to strong visual recognition and reasoning.

Evaluating Representational Similarity Measures from the Lens of Functional Correspondence

Neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI) both face the challenge of interpreting high-dimensional neural data, where the comparative analysis of such data is crucial for revealing shared mechanisms and differences between these complex systems. Despite the widespread use of representational comparisons and the abundance classes of comparison methods, a critical question remains: which metrics are most suitable for these comparisons? While some studies evaluate metrics based on their ability to differentiate models of different origins or constructions (e.g., various architectures), another approach is to assess how well they distinguish models that exhibit distinct behaviors. To investigate this, we examine the degree of alignment between various representational similarity measures and behavioral outcomes, employing group statistics and a comprehensive suite of behavioral metrics for comparison. In our evaluation of eight commonly used representational similarity metrics in the visual domain -- spanning alignment-based, Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)-based, inner product kernel-based, and nearest-neighbor methods -- we found that metrics like linear Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) and Procrustes distance, which emphasize the overall geometric structure or shape of representations, excelled in differentiating trained from untrained models and aligning with behavioral measures, whereas metrics such as linear predictivity, commonly used in neuroscience, demonstrated only moderate alignment with behavior. These insights are crucial for selecting metrics that emphasize behaviorally meaningful comparisons in NeuroAI research.