Relational Knowledge Distillation Brings DNN Representations Close Enough to Humans to Be Aligned Without Supervision

Linking the internal representations of deep neural networks (DNNs) to human mental representations is important for using DNNs as computational models of human vision. Existing DNN representations remain insufficiently similar to human mental representations, which are not directly observable and are therefore commonly measured through large-scale similarity judgments of object images. A natural approach to narrowing this gap is to directly transfer the relational structure of human representations into DNNs, and previous studies have reported improved human-DNN representational similarity. However, whether this improvement holds under stricter evaluation remains untested in two respects: fine-grained alignment at the individual-object level, and generalization to a human embedding derived from a dataset independent of the training data. Here, we employ an unsupervised comparison method, Gromov-Wasserstein optimal transport (GWOT), which estimates human-DNN correspondences from the internal distance structure alone and thereby tests fine-grained alignment. We further assess generalization on a curated test set of concepts non-overlapping with the training data. We show that fine-tuning pre-trained DNNs with Relational Knowledge Distillation (RKD), an established relational transfer method, brings DNNs close enough to humans to be aligned at the individual-object level on this test set. We also show that this improvement is driven by a more human-like global structure, as reflected in the ordering of distances among coarse categories, while the local human-DNN nearest-neighbor overlap rate remains largely unchanged. These findings indicate that relational transfer from humans brings the global structure of pre-trained DNNs close enough to the human structure to enable fine-grained human-DNN alignment without supervision.

When Composition Doesn't Add Up: Humans Identifying Defects in AI-Generated Images

*Chulin Zhao and Ruoqi Hu contributed equally to this work. State-of-the-art text-to-image (T2I) models exhibit pronounced and systematic defects when prompts involve intricate compositional factors such as multiple entities and multiple attributes. In this paper, we investigate how humans identify such defects. Specifically, we manually select 651 reference images from the four categories of people, hand, object, and scene that exhibit complex compositional characteristics, from which prompts emphasizing compositional factors are derived by manually editing ChatGPT-generated prompts. We then feed the prompts into three selected T2I models to generate AI images and conduct a comprehensive subjective study to identify their defects. For each image, 29 participants provide multi-label assessments specifying defect types and locations. The study yields the compositional AI-generated image defect (CO-AID) dataset, including reference images, prompts, AI-generated images, and information on defect locations and types. Experimental results show that training a deep model on CO-AID can both predict defects in AI-generated images and optimize AI image generation, demonstrating its usability and effectiveness. The database and supplementary materials are available at: https://github.com/Future-IQA/CO-AID .

Attention Capture Is Not Detection: A Two-Stage Account of How Humans Miss Localized AI Image Edits

As AI-generated image edits proliferate, the platforms meant to curb the resulting disinformation treat detectability as a single, undifferentiated property: an edit either gets a warning or it does not. We show this is the wrong model. Across a controlled eye-tracking study ($N=59$, Latin-square design, four conditions crossing edit area and semantic plausibility), a mixed-effects analysis reveals that whether an edit is noticed and whether it is correctly judged as fake are dissociable stages, governed by different factors: edit area drives attention capture ($p<0.001$) while semantic plausibility drives judgment accuracy and look-but-fail-to-see (LBFS) error rates ($p<0.001$). This dissociation survives correction for multiple comparisons; a secondary interaction between the two factors does not. This two-stage account extends a long-standing distinction in visual attention research (between pre-attentive capture and effortful recognition) into the new domain of AI-edit detectability. We then test whether a generative eye-movement model can computationally operationalize the attention-capture stage: a Transformer trained to generate scanpaths tracks per-image attention with strong discriminative power (Pearson $r=0.77$--$0.82$ across held-out stimuli) and, on the harder task of predicting LBFS incidence, modestly outperforms a two-parameter linear baseline even without access to the plausibility label ($r=0.52$ vs. $r=0.48$). We report this comparison, our ablations, and our method's limitations (a single fixed train/validation split, not leave-one-subject-out) without inflation, consistent with responsibly communicating what a machine learning system can and cannot do to help curb AI-driven disinformation.

Do Vision Encoders Exhibit Human-like Color Thresholds?

Understanding and characterizing human color perception is a longstanding research goal. One of the most traditional approaches is looking for the human color discrimination thresholds, the minimum chromatic differences perceptible to human observers. In recent years, deep neural networks have become the standard networks for computer vision tasks. In particular, deep vision encoders, foundation models trained on large-scale visual data, map images into latent feature representations. Despite the widespread use of deep vision encoders, few studies have investigated whether their internal representations exhibit human-like discrimination thresholds. In this work, we present a large-scale exploratory study probing the chromatic sensitivity of more than 50 pretrained vision encoders, including convolutional networks and vision transformers, against human discrimination thresholds. Using controlled chromatic stimuli at multiple chroma levels, we compare model-derived chromatic discrimination thresholds with human discrimination ellipses through a region-overlap metric (mIoU). Our analysis reveals generally weak alignment between model representations and human perceptual thresholds across all model families, with the best mIoU < 0.25. Moreover, we find that self-supervised encoders consistently outperform supervised ones, while language-supervised models show the most polarized behavior, occupying both the top and bottom of the ranking. These findings suggest that human-like chromatic sensitivity does not emerge naturally from current large-scale visual training objectives for any of the analyzed architectures.

Beyond Color Geometry: Evaluating Human-Like Color Representations in Vision Models

Do vision models see colors the way humans do? Existing evaluations of color representations usually compare them with geometric spaces such as CIELAB or with discrete color labels. These references capture perceptual distance or category membership, but not the graded way in which people organize colors. We evaluate color grounding against a fuzzy perceptual model with 86 graded categories fitted to human survey data. The framework can be applied to any image encoder and measures three complementary properties: category boundaries, category compactness, and graded alignment beyond what color geometry alone can explain. Across eleven Vision Transformer encoders, the category-level results are broadly similar, whereas graded alignment differs substantially. Masked Autoencoders achieve the strongest beyond-geometry alignment, with confidence intervals that do not overlap those of the other encoders. A layer-wise analysis further shows that masked reconstruction preserves this structure toward the output. On natural images, MAE represents surface color globally, while language-supervised models encode color more strongly in relation to the foreground object. These results show that human-like color grounding has several distinct aspects that should not be reduced to a single score.

Meta-learning as a principle for human-like visual representations

The structure of human visual representations underpins our capacity for adaptive behaviour. While pretrained neural networks model human visual representations with unprecedented success, a large discrepancy remains. We propose one reason: these networks optimise a single fixed objective, whereas human representations must support open-ended tasks. We hypothesise this flexibility arises from meta-learning (learning to learn), a pressure shaping representations to acquire new tasks from few observations. To test this, we train a sequence model, without any supervision from human data, across thousands of semantically rich tasks mapping images to high-level concepts. Compared to their pretrained base encoders, meta-learned representations better predict human similarity judgements, semantic rule learning, and high-level visual cortex. Behavioural gains depend on disentangled, high-level task distributions, while brain alignment is driven primarily by the learning-to-learn pressure. Our results suggest the flexibility of human visual representations reflects the functional demand to learn new semantic relationships on the fly.