Characterizing Universal Object Representations Across Vision Models

Deep neural networks trained with different architectures, objectives, and datasets have been reported to converge on similar visual representations. However, what remains unknown is which visual properties models actually converge on and which factors may underlie this convergence. To address this, we decompose the object similarity structure of 162 diverse vision models into a small set of non-negative dimensions. To determine universal versus model-specific dimensions, we then estimate how often each dimension reappears across models. In contrast to model-specific dimensions, universal dimensions are more interpretable and more strongly driven by conceptual image properties, indicating the relevance of interpretability and semantic content as implicit factors driving universality across models. Differences in architecture, objective function, training data, model size, and model performance do not explain the emergence of universal dimensions. However, models with more universal dimensions also better predict macaque IT activity and human similarity judgments, suggesting that universality reflects representations relevant to biological vision. These findings have important implications for understanding the emergent representations underlying deep neural network models and their alignment with biological vision.

Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.