Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning

Widely observed neural scaling laws, in which error falls off as a power of the training set size, model size, or both, have driven substantial performance improvements in deep learning. However, these improvements through scaling alone require considerable costs in compute and energy. Here we focus on the scaling of error with dataset size and show how both in theory and practice we can break beyond power law scaling and reduce it to exponential scaling instead if we have access to a high-quality data pruning metric that ranks the order in which training examples should be discarded to achieve any pruned dataset size. We then test this new exponential scaling prediction with pruned dataset size empirically, and indeed observe better than power law scaling performance on ResNets trained on CIFAR-10, SVHN, and ImageNet. Given the importance of finding high-quality pruning metrics, we perform the first large-scale benchmarking study of ten different data pruning metrics on ImageNet. We find most existing high performing metrics scale poorly to ImageNet, while the best are computationally intensive and require labels for every image. We therefore developed a new simple, cheap and scalable self-supervised pruning metric that demonstrates comparable performance to the best supervised metrics. Overall, our work suggests that the discovery of good data-pruning metrics may provide a viable path forward to substantially improved neural scaling laws, thereby reducing the resource costs of modern deep learning.

The developmental trajectory of object recognition robustness: children are like small adults but unlike big deep neural networks

In laboratory object recognition tasks based on undistorted photographs, both adult humans and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) perform close to ceiling. Unlike adults', whose object recognition performance is robust against a wide range of image distortions, DNNs trained on standard ImageNet (1.3M images) perform poorly on distorted images. However, the last two years have seen impressive gains in DNN distortion robustness, predominantly achieved through ever-increasing large-scale datasets$\unicode{x2014}$orders of magnitude larger than ImageNet. While this simple brute-force approach is very effective in achieving human-level robustness in DNNs, it raises the question of whether human robustness, too, is simply due to extensive experience with (distorted) visual input during childhood and beyond. Here we investigate this question by comparing the core object recognition performance of 146 children (aged 4$\unicode{x2013}$15) against adults and against DNNs. We find, first, that already 4$\unicode{x2013}$6 year-olds showed remarkable robustness to image distortions and outperform DNNs trained on ImageNet. Second, we estimated the number of $\unicode{x201C}$images$\unicode{x201D}$ children have been exposed to during their lifetime. Compared to various DNNs, children's high robustness requires relatively little data. Third, when recognizing objects children$\unicode{x2014}$like adults but unlike DNNs$\unicode{x2014}$rely heavily on shape but not on texture cues. Together our results suggest that the remarkable robustness to distortions emerges early in the developmental trajectory of human object recognition and is unlikely the result of a mere accumulation of experience with distorted visual input. Even though current DNNs match human performance regarding robustness they seem to rely on different and more data-hungry strategies to do so.

Trivial or impossible -- dichotomous data difficulty masks model differences (on ImageNet and beyond)

"The power of a generalization system follows directly from its biases" (Mitchell 1980). Today, CNNs are incredibly powerful generalisation systems -- but to what degree have we understood how their inductive bias influences model decisions? We here attempt to disentangle the various aspects that determine how a model decides. In particular, we ask: what makes one model decide differently from another? In a meticulously controlled setting, we find that (1.) irrespective of the network architecture or objective (e.g. self-supervised, semi-supervised, vision transformers, recurrent models) all models end up with a similar decision boundary. (2.) To understand these findings, we analysed model decisions on the ImageNet validation set from epoch to epoch and image by image. We find that the ImageNet validation set, among others, suffers from dichotomous data difficulty (DDD): For the range of investigated models and their accuracies, it is dominated by 46.0% "trivial" and 11.5% "impossible" images (beyond label errors). Only 42.5% of the images could possibly be responsible for the differences between two models' decision boundaries. (3.) Only removing the "impossible" and "trivial" images allows us to see pronounced differences between models. (4.) Humans are highly accurate at predicting which images are "trivial" and "impossible" for CNNs (81.4%). This implies that in future comparisons of brains, machines and behaviour, much may be gained from investigating the decisive role of images and the distribution of their difficulties.

How Well do Feature Visualizations Support Causal Understanding of CNN Activations?

One widely used approach towards understanding the inner workings of deep convolutional neural networks is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. Feature visualizations via activation maximization are thought to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a unit to be activated. If this is indeed true, these synthetic images should enable humans to predict the effect of an intervention, such as whether occluding a certain patch of the image (say, a dog's head) changes a unit's activation. Here, we test this hypothesis by asking humans to predict which of two square occlusions causes a larger change to a unit's activation. Both a large-scale crowdsourced experiment and measurements with experts show that on average, the extremely activating feature visualizations by Olah et al. (2017) indeed help humans on this task ($67 \pm 4\%$ accuracy; baseline performance without any visualizations is $60 \pm 3\%$). However, they do not provide any significant advantage over other visualizations (such as e.g. dataset samples), which yield similar performance ($66 \pm 3\%$ to $67 \pm 3\%$ accuracy). Taken together, we propose an objective psychophysical task to quantify the benefit of unit-level interpretability methods for humans, and find no evidence that feature visualizations provide humans with better "causal understanding" than simple alternative visualizations.

Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine vision

A few years ago, the first CNN surpassed human performance on ImageNet. However, it soon became clear that machines lack robustness on more challenging test cases, a major obstacle towards deploying machines "in the wild" and towards obtaining better computational models of human visual perception. Here we ask: Are we making progress in closing the gap between human and machine vision? To answer this question, we tested human observers on a broad range of out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets, adding the "missing human baseline" by recording 85,120 psychophysical trials across 90 participants. We then investigated a range of promising machine learning developments that crucially deviate from standard supervised CNNs along three axes: objective function (self-supervised, adversarially trained, CLIP language-image training), architecture (e.g. vision transformers), and dataset size (ranging from 1M to 1B). Our findings are threefold. (1.) The longstanding robustness gap between humans and CNNs is closing, with the best models now matching or exceeding human performance on most OOD datasets. (2.) There is still a substantial image-level consistency gap, meaning that humans make different errors than models. In contrast, most models systematically agree in their categorisation errors, even substantially different ones like contrastive self-supervised vs. standard supervised models. (3.) In many cases, human-to-model consistency improves when training dataset size is increased by one to three orders of magnitude. Our results give reason for cautious optimism: While there is still much room for improvement, the behavioural difference between human and machine vision is narrowing. In order to measure future progress, 17 OOD datasets with image-level human behavioural data are provided as a benchmark here: https://github.com/bethgelab/model-vs-human/

Exemplary Natural Images Explain CNN Activations Better than Feature Visualizations

Feature visualizations such as synthetic maximally activating images are a widely used explanation method to better understand the information processing of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At the same time, there are concerns that these visualizations might not accurately represent CNNs' inner workings. Here, we measure how much extremely activating images help humans to predict CNN activations. Using a well-controlled psychophysical paradigm, we compare the informativeness of synthetic images (Olah et al., 2017) with a simple baseline visualization, namely exemplary natural images that also strongly activate a specific feature map. Given either synthetic or natural reference images, human participants choose which of two query images leads to strong positive activation. The experiment is designed to maximize participants' performance, and is the first to probe intermediate instead of final layer representations. We find that synthetic images indeed provide helpful information about feature map activations (82% accuracy; chance would be 50%). However, natural images-originally intended to be a baseline-outperform synthetic images by a wide margin (92% accuracy). Additionally, participants are faster and more confident for natural images, whereas subjective impressions about the interpretability of feature visualization are mixed. The higher informativeness of natural images holds across most layers, for both expert and lay participants as well as for hand- and randomly-picked feature visualizations. Even if only a single reference image is given, synthetic images provide less information than natural images (65% vs. 73%). In summary, popular synthetic images from feature visualizations are significantly less informative for assessing CNN activations than natural images. We argue that future visualization methods should improve over this simple baseline.

On the surprising similarities between supervised and self-supervised models

How do humans learn to acquire a powerful, flexible and robust representation of objects? While much of this process remains unknown, it is clear that humans do not require millions of object labels. Excitingly, recent algorithmic advancements in self-supervised learning now enable convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn useful visual object representations without supervised labels, too. In the light of this recent breakthrough, we here compare self-supervised networks to supervised models and human behaviour. We tested models on 15 generalisation datasets for which large-scale human behavioural data is available (130K highly controlled psychophysical trials). Surprisingly, current self-supervised CNNs share four key characteristics of their supervised counterparts: (1.) relatively poor noise robustness (with the notable exception of SimCLR), (2.) non-human category-level error patterns, (3.) non-human image-level error patterns (yet high similarity to supervised model errors) and (4.) a bias towards texture. Taken together, these results suggest that the strategies learned through today's supervised and self-supervised training objectives end up being surprisingly similar, but distant from human-like behaviour. That being said, we are clearly just at the beginning of what could be called a self-supervised revolution of machine vision, and we are hopeful that future self-supervised models behave differently from supervised ones, and---perhaps---more similar to robust human object recognition.

Beyond accuracy: quantifying trial-by-trial behaviour of CNNs and humans by measuring error consistency

A central problem in cognitive science and behavioural neuroscience as well as in machine learning and artificial intelligence research is to ascertain whether two or more decision makers (e.g. brains or algorithms) use the same strategy. Accuracy alone cannot distinguish between strategies: two systems may achieve similar accuracy with very different strategies. The need to differentiate beyond accuracy is particularly pressing if two systems are at or near ceiling performance, like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and humans on visual object recognition. Here we introduce trial-by-trial error consistency, a quantitative analysis for measuring whether two decision making systems systematically make errors on the same inputs. Making consistent errors on a trial-by-trial basis is a necessary condition if we want to ascertain similar processing strategies between decision makers. Our analysis is applicable to compare algorithms with algorithms, humans with humans, and algorithms with humans. When applying error consistency to visual object recognition we obtain three main findings: (1.) Irrespective of architecture, CNNs are remarkably consistent with one another (2.) The consistency between CNNs and human observers, however, is little above what can be expected by chance alone--indicating that humans and CNNs are likely implementing very different strategies (3.) CORnet-S, a recurrent model termed the "current best model of the primate ventral visual stream", fails to capture essential characteristics of human behavioural data and behaves essentially like a ResNet-50 in our analysis--that is, just like a standard feedforward network. Taken together, error consistency analysis suggests that the strategies used by human and machine vision are still very different--but we envision our general-purpose error consistency analysis to serve as a fruitful tool for quantifying future progress.

Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks

Deep learning has triggered the current rise of artificial intelligence and is the workhorse of today's machine intelligence. Numerous success stories have rapidly spread all over science, industry and society, but its limitations have only recently come into focus. In this perspective we seek to distil how many of deep learning's problem can be seen as different symptoms of the same underlying problem: shortcut learning. Shortcuts are decision rules that perform well on standard benchmarks but fail to transfer to more challenging testing conditions, such as real-world scenarios. Related issues are known in Comparative Psychology, Education and Linguistics, suggesting that shortcut learning may be a common characteristic of learning systems, biological and artificial alike. Based on these observations, we develop a set of recommendations for model interpretation and benchmarking, highlighting recent advances in machine learning to improve robustness and transferability from the lab to real-world applications.