Gene Tangtartharakul

Gene Tangtartharakul, Katherine R. Storrs

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models are often interpreted by analysing which categories are routed to which experts. However, routing alone does not reveal what each expert actually encodes. We train sparsely-gated convolutional MoE models with a contrastive objective on natural images and characterise expert specialisation using tools from visual neuroscience. Extending from gating-level to expert-level analyses, we measure per-expert category separability, and per-expert tuning using the most exciting inputs. Extending from category-level to feature-level explanations, we interpret tuning via semantic dimensions derived from a dataset of human behavioural judgements (THINGS). Finally, we use tuning and representational similarity analysis to assess the stability of expertise-allocation across independent initialisations. We find that an animate-inanimate distinction dominates expert partitioning, apparent from gating through to expert readout, and is stable across independently trained models. Although routing statistics suggest relatively sparse, categorical preferences, expert analyses reveal broader tuning to continuous visual and semantic dimensions that extend beyond category boundaries. Experts exhibit similar category-separability to one another, despite distinct feature tuning, demonstrating the explanatory benefits of moving beyond category-level analyses. Together, these results show that expert specialisation in vision MoEs extends well beyond category routing and is better understood by probing fine-grained expert-level tuning and representational structure.

Gene Tangtartharakul, Katherine R. Storrs

Visual Language Models (VLMs) show remarkable performance in visual reasoning tasks, successfully tackling college-level challenges that require high-level understanding of images. However, some recent reports of VLMs struggling to reason about elemental visual concepts like orientation, position, continuity, and occlusion suggest a potential gulf between human and VLM vision. Here we use the toolkit of neuropsychology to systematically assess the capabilities of three state-of-the-art VLMs across visual domains. Using 51 tests drawn from six clinical and experimental batteries, we characterise the visual abilities of leading VLMs relative to normative performance in healthy adults. While the models excel in straightforward object recognition tasks, we find widespread deficits in low- and mid-level visual abilities that would be considered clinically significant in humans. These selective deficits, profiled through validated test batteries, suggest that an artificial system can achieve complex object recognition without developing foundational visual concepts that in humans require no explicit training.