Xiaoliang Luo

Felipe Yáñez, Xiaoliang Luo, Omar Valerio Minero et al.

Large language models (LLMs) can surpass humans in certain forecasting tasks. What role does this leave for humans in the overall decision process? One possibility is that humans, despite performing worse than LLMs, can still add value when teamed with them. A human and machine team can surpass each individual teammate when team members' confidence is well-calibrated and team members diverge in which tasks they find difficult (i.e., calibration and diversity are needed). We simplified and extended a Bayesian approach to combining judgments using a logistic regression framework that integrates confidence-weighted judgments for any number of team members. Using this straightforward method, we demonstrated its effectiveness in both image classification and neuroscience forecasting tasks. Combining human judgments with one or more machines consistently improved overall team performance. Our hope is that this simple and effective strategy for integrating the judgments of humans and machines will lead to productive collaborations.

Xiaoliang Luo, Akilles Rechardt, Guangzhi Sun et al.

Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created BrainBench, a forward-looking benchmark for predicting neuroscience results. We find that LLMs surpass experts in predicting experimental outcomes. BrainGPT, an LLM we tuned on the neuroscience literature, performed better yet. Like human experts, when LLMs were confident in their predictions, they were more likely to be correct, which presages a future where humans and LLMs team together to make discoveries. Our approach is not neuroscience-specific and is transferable to other knowledge-intensive endeavors.

Xiaoliang Luo, Guangzhi Sun, Bradley C. Love

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have outperformed human experts in predicting the results of neuroscience experiments (Luo et al., 2024). What is the basis for this performance? One possibility is that statistical patterns in that specific scientific literature, as opposed to emergent reasoning abilities arising from broader training, underlie LLMs' performance. To evaluate this possibility, we trained (next word prediction) a relatively small 124M-parameter GPT-2 model on 1.3 billion tokens of domain-specific knowledge. Despite being orders of magnitude smaller than larger LLMs trained on trillions of tokens, small models achieved expert-level performance in predicting neuroscience results. Small models trained on the neuroscience literature succeeded when they were trained from scratch using a tokenizer specifically trained on neuroscience text or when the neuroscience literature was used to finetune a pretrained GPT-2. Our results indicate that expert-level performance may be attained by even small LLMs through domain-specific, auto-regressive training approaches.

Xiaoliang Luo, Michael Ramscar, Bradley C. Love

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has led to their consideration as models of human language processing. Instead, we suggest that the success of LLMs arises from the flexibility of the transformer learning architecture. To evaluate this conjecture, we trained LLMs on scientific texts that were either in a forward or backward format. Despite backward text being inconsistent with the structure of human languages, we found that LLMs performed equally well in either format on a neuroscience benchmark, eclipsing human expert performance for both forward and backward orders. Our results are consistent with the success of transformers across diverse domains, such as weather prediction and protein design. This widespread success is attributable to LLM's ability to extract predictive patterns from any sufficiently structured input. Given their generality, we suggest caution in interpreting LLM's success in linguistic tasks as evidence for human-like mechanisms.

Binxia Xu, Xiaoliang Luo, Luke Dickens et al.

Determining whether AI systems process information similarly to humans is central to cognitive science and trustworthy AI. While modern AI models match human accuracy on standard tasks, such parity does not guarantee that their underlying decision-making strategies are aligned with human information processing. Assessing performance using i) error alignment metrics to compare how humans and models fail, and ii) using distorted, or otherwise more challenging, stimuli, provides a viable pathway toward a finer characterization of model-human alignment. However, existing out-of-distribution (OOD) analyses for challenging stimuli are limited due to methodological choices: they define OOD shift relative to model training data or use arbitrary distortion-specific parameters with little correspondence to human perception, hindering principled comparisons. We propose a human-centred framework that redefines the degree of OOD as a spectrum of human perceptual difficulty. By quantifying how much a collection of stimuli deviates from an undistorted reference set based on human accuracy, we construct an OOD spectrum and identify four distinct regimes of perceptual challenge. This approach enables principled model-human comparisons at calibrated difficulty levels. We apply this framework to object recognition and reveal unique, regime-dependent model-human alignment rankings and profiles across deep learning architectures. Vision-language models are the most consistently human aligned across near- and far-OOD conditions, but CNNs are more aligned than ViTs for near-OOD and ViTs are more aligned than CNNs for far-OOD conditions. Our work demonstrates the critical importance of accounting for cross-condition differences such as perceptual difficulty for a principled assessment of model-human alignment.

Xiaoliang Luo, Xinyi Xu, Michael Ramscar et al.

Can autoregressive large language models (LLMs) learn consistent probability distributions when trained on sequences in different token orders? We prove formally that for any well-defined probability distribution, sequence perplexity is invariant under any factorization, including forward, backward, or arbitrary permutations. This result establishes a rigorous theoretical foundation for studying how LLMs learn from data and defines principled protocols for empirical evaluation. Applying these protocols, we show that prior studies examining ordering effects suffer from critical methodological flaws. We retrain GPT-2 models across forward, backward, and arbitrary permuted orders on scientific text. We find systematic deviations from theoretical invariance across all orderings with arbitrary permutations strongly deviating from both forward and backward models, which largely (but not completely) agreed with one another. Deviations were traceable to differences in self-attention, reflecting positional and locality biases in processing. Our theoretical and empirical results provide novel avenues for understanding positional biases in LLMs and suggest methods for detecting when LLMs' probability distributions are inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy.

Freddie Bickford Smith, Brett D Roads, Xiaoliang Luo et al.

Top-down attention allows neural networks, both artificial and biological, to focus on the information most relevant for a given task. This is known to enhance performance in visual perception. But it remains unclear how attention brings about its perceptual boost, especially when it comes to naturalistic settings like recognising an object in an everyday scene. What aspects of a visual task does attention help to deal with? We aim to answer this with a computational experiment based on a general framework called task-oriented ablation design. First we define a broad range of visual tasks and identify six factors that underlie task variability. Then on each task we compare the performance of two neural networks, one with top-down attention and one without. These comparisons reveal the task-dependence of attention's perceptual boost, giving a clearer idea of the role attention plays. Whereas many existing cognitive accounts link attention to stimulus-level variables, such as visual clutter and object scale, we find greater explanatory power in system-level variables that capture the interaction between the model, the distribution of training data and the task format. This finding suggests a shift in how attention is studied could be fruitful. We make publicly available our code and results, along with statistics relevant to ImageNet-based experiments beyond this one. Our contribution serves to support the development of more human-like vision models and the design of more informative machine-learning experiments.

Nikolay Dagaev, Brett D. Roads, Xiaoliang Luo et al.

Despite their impressive performance in object recognition and other tasks under standard testing conditions, deep networks often fail to generalize to out-of-distribution (o.o.d.) samples. One cause for this shortcoming is that modern architectures tend to rely on "shortcuts" - superficial features that correlate with categories without capturing deeper invariants that hold across contexts. Real-world concepts often possess a complex structure that can vary superficially across contexts, which can make the most intuitive and promising solutions in one context not generalize to others. One potential way to improve o.o.d. generalization is to assume simple solutions are unlikely to be valid across contexts and avoid them, which we refer to as the too-good-to-be-true prior. A low-capacity network (LCN) with a shallow architecture should only be able to learn surface relationships, including shortcuts. We find that LCNs can serve as shortcut detectors. Furthermore, an LCN's predictions can be used in a two-stage approach to encourage a high-capacity network (HCN) to rely on deeper invariant features that should generalize broadly. In particular, items that the LCN can master are downweighted when training the HCN. Using a modified version of the CIFAR-10 dataset in which we introduced shortcuts, we found that the two-stage LCN-HCN approach reduced reliance on shortcuts and facilitated o.o.d. generalization.

Freddie Bickford Smith, Xiaoliang Luo, Brett D. Roads et al.

Top-down attention allows people to focus on task-relevant visual information. Is the resulting perceptual boost task-dependent in naturalistic settings? We aim to answer this with a large-scale computational experiment. First, we design a collection of visual tasks, each consisting of classifying images from a chosen task set (subset of ImageNet categories). The nature of a task is determined by which categories are included in the task set. Second, on each task we train an attention-augmented neural network and then compare its accuracy to that of a baseline network. We show that the perceptual boost of attention is stronger with increasing task-set difficulty, weaker with increasing task-set size and weaker with increasing perceptual similarity within a task set.

Xiaoliang Luo, Brett D. Roads, Bradley C. Love

People deploy top-down, goal-directed attention to accomplish tasks, such as finding lost keys. By tuning the visual system to relevant information sources, object recognition can become more efficient (a benefit) and more biased toward the target (a potential cost). Motivated by selective attention in categorisation models, we developed a goal-directed attention mechanism that can process naturalistic (photographic) stimuli. Our attention mechanism can be incorporated into any existing deep convolutional neural network (DCNNs). The processing stages in DCNNs have been related to ventral visual stream. In that light, our attentional mechanism incorporates top-down influences from prefrontal cortex (PFC) to support goal-directed behaviour. Akin to how attention weights in categorisation models warp representational spaces, we introduce a layer of attention weights to the mid-level of a DCNN that amplify or attenuate activity to further a goal. We evaluated the attentional mechanism using photographic stimuli, varying the attentional target. We found that increasing goal-directed attention has benefits (increasing hit rates) and costs (increasing false alarm rates). At a moderate level, attention improves sensitivity (i.e., increases $d^\prime$) at only a moderate increase in bias for tasks involving standard images, blended images, and natural adversarial images chosen to fool DCNNs. These results suggest that goal-directed attention can reconfigure general-purpose DCNNs to better suit the current task goal, much like PFC modulates activity along the ventral stream. In addition to being more parsimonious and brain consistent, the mid-level attention approach performed better than a standard machine learning approach for transfer learning, namely retraining the final network layer to accommodate the new task.