跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.15533 · v1

Analysis choices decide whether untrained networks beat trained ones at V1: a multiverse analysis of model-brain RSA

首次提交 2026-11-11 22:18
版本更新 2026-11-11 22:18
雷达观测 2026-11-13 11:11
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Untrained convolutional networks have been reported to rival trained networks as models of visual cortex, and we had reported an untrained-network advantage over backpropagation at V1 in THINGS fMRI, together with a dependence on evaluation resolution. Under a pre-specified ridge readout, the untrained network scored below the trained one at every pooling grid (median r difference -0.043 at g = 4, 0 of 5 seeds positive), and also in MSE skill and per-fold r. In exploratory analyses, across 36 combinations of unit normalisation, distance measure and voxel normalisation (28 distinct analyses), the sign of the V1 contrast depended on the analysis (intervals above 0 in 5 and below 0 in 9 distinct analyses), and in our networks the resolution dependence of the original convention appeared in only one cell. Raw correlation-distance representational similarity analysis (RSA) covaried with the alignment of model and voxel patterns with the unit-mean profile (Spearman 0.97 across our networks, 0.79 across six ImageNet architectures); the advantage was absent from the component orthogonal to the mean profile, and the parallel component alone did not resolve it. On the unweighted angular component of centred patterns, trained networks were ahead at V1 (our network and 5 of 6 ImageNet models) and at LOC (all seven); the norm-weighted angular term was not resolved. A luminance-and-contrast bank scored above every network under ridge (point estimates), and adding network features under a shared penalty did not improve prediction. Intervals are stimulus-bootstrap intervals for three subjects, and 6 pre-stated predictions were not met. We recommend reporting sensitivity to centring over the evaluated stimuli on both sides, reporting components separately, and including a small multiverse and simple baselines.

作者备注:31 pages, 6 figures; code and data pipeline: https://github.com/nilsleut/ridge-readout

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-11 22:18 · 最新观测版本

Analysis choices decide whether untrained networks beat trained ones at V1: a multiverse analysis of model-brain RSA

Untrained convolutional networks have been reported to rival trained networks as models of visual cortex, and we had reported an untrained-network advantage over backpropagation at V1 in THINGS fMRI, together with a dependence on evaluation resolution. Under a pre-specified ridge readout, the untrained network scored below the trained one at every pooling grid (median r difference -0.043 at g = 4, 0 of 5 seeds positive), and also in MSE skill and per-fold r. In exploratory analyses, across 36 combinations of unit normalisation, distance measure and voxel normalisation (28 distinct analyses), the sign of the V1 contrast depended on the analysis (intervals above 0 in 5 and below 0 in 9 distinct analyses), and in our networks the resolution dependence of the original convention appeared in only one cell. Raw correlation-distance representational similarity analysis (RSA) covaried with the alignment of model and voxel patterns with the unit-mean profile (Spearman 0.97 across our networks, 0.79 across six ImageNet architectures); the advantage was absent from the component orthogonal to the mean profile, and the parallel component alone did not resolve it. On the unweighted angular component of centred patterns, trained networks were ahead at V1 (our network and 5 of 6 ImageNet models) and at LOC (all seven); the norm-weighted angular term was not resolved. A luminance-and-contrast bank scored above every network under ridge (point estimates), and adding network features under a shared penalty did not improve prediction. Intervals are stimulus-bootstrap intervals for three subjects, and 6 pre-stated predictions were not met. We recommend reporting sensitivity to centring over the evaluated stimuli on both sides, reporting components separately, and including a small multiverse and simple baselines.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗