Sreejan Kumar

Sreejan Kumar, Carlos G. Correa, Ishita Dasgupta et al.

Strong inductive biases give humans the ability to quickly learn to perform a variety of tasks. Although meta-learning is a method to endow neural networks with useful inductive biases, agents trained by meta-learning may sometimes acquire very different strategies from humans. We show that co-training these agents on predicting representations from natural language task descriptions and programs induced to generate such tasks guides them toward more human-like inductive biases. Human-generated language descriptions and program induction models that add new learned primitives both contain abstract concepts that can compress description length. Co-training on these representations result in more human-like behavior in downstream meta-reinforcement learning agents than less abstract controls (synthetic language descriptions, program induction without learned primitives), suggesting that the abstraction supported by these representations is key.

Sreejan Kumar, Ishita Dasgupta, Nathaniel D. Daw et al.

The ability to acquire abstract knowledge is a hallmark of human intelligence and is believed by many to be one of the core differences between humans and neural network models. Agents can be endowed with an inductive bias towards abstraction through meta-learning, where they are trained on a distribution of tasks that share some abstract structure that can be learned and applied. However, because neural networks are hard to interpret, it can be difficult to tell whether agents have learned the underlying abstraction, or alternatively statistical patterns that are characteristic of that abstraction. In this work, we compare the performance of humans and agents in a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm in which tasks are generated from abstract rules. We define a novel methodology for building "task metamers" that closely match the statistics of the abstract tasks but use a different underlying generative process, and evaluate performance on both abstract and metamer tasks. We find that humans perform better at abstract tasks than metamer tasks whereas common neural network architectures typically perform worse on the abstract tasks than the matched metamers. This work provides a foundation for characterizing differences between humans and machine learning that can be used in future work towards developing machines with more human-like behavior.

Botos Csaba, Sreejan Kumar, Austin Tudor David Andrews et al.

Humans rapidly learn abstract knowledge when encountering novel environments and flexibly deploy this knowledge to guide efficient and intelligent action. Can modern AI systems learn and plan in a similar way? We study this question using a dataset of complex human gameplay with concurrent fMRI recordings, in which participants learn novel video games that require rule discovery, hypothesis revision, and multi-step planning. We jointly evaluate models by their ability to play the games, match human learning behavior, and predict brain activity during the same task, comparing a suite of frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) against model-free and model-based deep reinforcement learning agents and a Bayesian theory-based agent. We find that frontier LRMs most closely match human behavioral patterns during game discovery and predict brain activity an order of magnitude better than both reinforcement learning alternatives across cortical and subcortical regions, with effects robust to permutation controls. Through targeted manipulations, we further show that brain alignment reflects the model's in-context representation of the game state rather than its downstream planning or reasoning. Our results establish LRMs as compelling computational accounts of human learning and decision making in complex, naturalistic environments. Project page with interactive replays: https://botcs.github.io/reason-to-play/

Marcel Binz, Elif Akata, Matthias Bethge et al. · princeton

Establishing a unified theory of cognition has been a major goal of psychology. While there have been previous attempts to instantiate such theories by building computational models, we currently do not have one model that captures the human mind in its entirety. A first step in this direction is to create a model that can predict human behavior in a wide range of settings. Here we introduce Centaur, a computational model that can predict and simulate human behavior in any experiment expressible in natural language. We derived Centaur by finetuning a state-of-the-art language model on a novel, large-scale data set called Psych-101. Psych-101 reaches an unprecedented scale, covering trial-by-trial data from over 60,000 participants performing over 10,000,000 choices in 160 experiments. Centaur not only captures the behavior of held-out participants better than existing cognitive models, but also generalizes to new cover stories, structural task modifications, and entirely new domains. Furthermore, we find that the model's internal representations become more aligned with human neural activity after finetuning. Taken together, our results demonstrate that it is possible to discover computational models that capture human behavior across a wide range of domains. We believe that such models provide tremendous potential for guiding the development of cognitive theories and present a case study to demonstrate this.

Declan Campbell, Sreejan Kumar, Tyler Giallanza et al.

Humans possess a remarkable capacity to recognize and manipulate abstract structure, which is especially apparent in the domain of geometry. Recent research in cognitive science suggests neural networks do not share this capacity, concluding that human geometric abilities come from discrete symbolic structure in human mental representations. However, progress in artificial intelligence (AI) suggests that neural networks begin to demonstrate more human-like reasoning after scaling up standard architectures in both model size and amount of training data. In this study, we revisit empirical results in cognitive science on geometric visual processing and identify three key biases in geometric visual processing: a sensitivity towards complexity, regularity, and the perception of parts and relations. We test tasks from the literature that probe these biases in humans and find that large pre-trained neural network models used in AI demonstrate more human-like abstract geometric processing.

Sreejan Kumar, Raja Marjieh, Byron Zhang et al.

Humans extract useful abstractions of the world from noisy sensory data. Serial reproduction allows us to study how people construe the world through a paradigm similar to the game of telephone, where one person observes a stimulus and reproduces it for the next to form a chain of reproductions. Past serial reproduction experiments typically employ a single sensory modality, but humans often communicate abstractions of the world to each other through language. To investigate the effect language on the formation of abstractions, we implement a novel multimodal serial reproduction framework by asking people who receive a visual stimulus to reproduce it in a linguistic format, and vice versa. We ran unimodal and multimodal chains with both humans and GPT-4 and find that adding language as a modality has a larger effect on human reproductions than GPT-4's. This suggests human visual and linguistic representations are more dissociable than those of GPT-4.

Nicholas Budny, Kia Ghods, Declan Campbell et al.

Why do Vision Language Models (VLMs), despite success on standard benchmarks, often fail to match human performance on surprisingly simple visual reasoning tasks? While the underlying computational principles are still debated, we hypothesize that a crucial factor is a deficit in visually-grounded serial processing. To test this hypothesis, we compared human and VLM performance across tasks designed to vary serial processing demands in three distinct domains: geometric reasoning, perceptual enumeration, and mental rotation. Tasks within each domain varied serial processing load by manipulating factors such as geometric concept complexity, perceptual individuation load, and transformation difficulty. Across all domains, our results revealed a consistent pattern: decreased VLM accuracy was strongly correlated with increased human reaction time (used as a proxy for serial processing load). As tasks require more demanding serial processing -- whether composing concepts, enumerating items, or performing mental transformations -- the VLM-human performance gap widens reliably. These findings support our hypothesis, indicating that limitations in serial, visually grounded reasoning represent a fundamental bottleneck that distinguishes current VLMs from humans.

Carlos A. Velazquez-Vargas, Isaac Ray Christian, Jordan A. Taylor et al.

We investigated the human capacity to acquire multiple visuomotor mappings for de novo skills. Using a grid navigation paradigm, we tested whether contextual cues implemented as different "grid worlds", allow participants to learn two distinct key-mappings more efficiently. Our results indicate that when contextual information is provided, task performance is significantly better. The same held true for meta-reinforcement learning agents that differed in whether or not they receive contextual information when performing the task. We evaluated their accuracy in predicting human performance in the task and analyzed their internal representations. The results indicate that contextual cues allow the formation of separate representations in space and time when using different visuomotor mappings, whereas the absence of them favors sharing one representation. While both strategies can allow learning of multiple visuomotor mappings, we showed contextual cues provide a computational advantage in terms of how many mappings can be learned.

Sreejan Kumar, Ishita Dasgupta, Jonathan D. Cohen et al.

In recent years, meta-learning, in which a model is trained on a family of tasks (i.e. a task distribution), has emerged as an approach to training neural networks to perform tasks that were previously assumed to require structured representations, making strides toward closing the gap between humans and machines. However, we argue that evaluating meta-learning remains a challenge, and can miss whether meta-learning actually uses the structure embedded within the tasks. These meta-learners might therefore still be significantly different from humans learners. To demonstrate this difference, we first define a new meta-reinforcement learning task in which a structured task distribution is generated using a compositional grammar. We then introduce a novel approach to constructing a "null task distribution" with the same statistical complexity as this structured task distribution but without the explicit rule-based structure used to generate the structured task. We train a standard meta-learning agent, a recurrent network trained with model-free reinforcement learning, and compare it with human performance across the two task distributions. We find a double dissociation in which humans do better in the structured task distribution whereas agents do better in the null task distribution -- despite comparable statistical complexity. This work highlights that multiple strategies can achieve reasonable meta-test performance, and that careful construction of control task distributions is a valuable way to understand which strategies meta-learners acquire, and how they might differ from humans.