Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Flexible Tool Selection through Low-dimensional Attribute Alignment of Vision and Language

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a 13-dimensional human-rated attribute space lets frozen vision and language models match task descriptions to tool images at 74% accuracy, rivaling much larger multimodal LLMs.

desk verdict A useful dataset and a plausible interpretable framework, but the headline advantage over direct matching is confounded by training exposure and a circular scenario-labeling loop. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22146 v4 pith:WKG5YSS4 submitted 2025-05-28 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLq-bio.NC

Guangfu Hao , Haojie Wen , Liangxuan Guo , Yang Chen , Yanchao Bi , Shan Yu This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLq-bio.NC
keywords toolselectionattribute-basedreasoningcross-modalalignmentvision-languagemodelsNetcognitivemodelingfrozenbackboneshuman-ratedattributes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that flexible tool selection — choosing the right physical tool for a described task — can be modeled as matching in a low-dimensional space of human-rated attributes rather than by learning direct image-to-name mappings. The authors build a 13-dimensional attribute space covering physical, functional, and psychological properties of tools, and train small regression heads on frozen visual and language backbones to project both tool images and task descriptions into that space. On a 100-scenario matching test, the best configuration (DeepSeek-R1-1.5B + ResNet50) selects the correct tool 74% of the time, outperforming direct tool-name matching (20%) and smaller multimodal models, and roughly matching GPT-4o (73%) and Gemini-2.0-Pro (72%) with far fewer parameters. If the claim holds, it means an interpretable, parameter-efficient route to cross-modal tool reasoning exists without end-to-end multimodal training.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the 13-dimensional attribute space plus a dual-pathway alignment architecture. Each attribute (elongation, spikiness, size, smoothness, texturedness, hardness, graspability, hand involvement, force, body extension, threatness, valence, arousal) is a 1–7 human rating averaged across 30 annotators per tool. The visual pathway passes a tool image through a frozen ResNet/ViT backbone and an MLP head that regresses to this vector; the language pathway passes a scenario description through a frozen GPT-2/LLaMA/DeepSeek model and a deeper MLP head that regresses to the same vector. Matching happens by cosine similarity or negative Euclidean distance between the predicted task-requirement vector and each candidate tool's predicted vector. The attribute space is what lets the two frozen encoders communicate without end-to-end multimodal training.

What would settle it

Take the 100 matching scenarios used for evaluation, have independent human raters score each scenario on the same 13 attributes without knowing the intended tool, and compare the averaged ratings to the inherited tool attribute vectors; if the agreement is no better than chance, the language pathway's ground truth is circular and the 74% matching accuracy is inflated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a 13-dimensional attribute space, hand-designed from human ratings, can serve as a shared bottleneck that aligns visual tool perception with linguistic task understanding. With frozen ImageNet-pretrained ResNet or ViT backbones and frozen language models (GPT-2, LLaMA-3.2-1.2B, DeepSeek-R1-1.5B), the paper trains only small MLP regression heads to predict attribute vectors from images and from scenario text, then selects tools by cosine or Euclidean similarity of the predicted vectors. The best system reaches 74% accuracy on the Tool Matching Dataset, against 20% for direct tool-name matching and 21–58% for smaller multimodal LLMs, while GPT-4o with chain-of-thought reaches 73% and Gemini-2.0-Pro 72%. The authors also report that manipulation-related attributes — graspability, elongation, hand-relatedness — carry the most weight in both modalities, and that novel-tool generalization is limited (22.6% Top-1 accuracy versus 91.2% for Gemini-2.0-Pro).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gemini-generated task descriptions genuinely inherit the attribute vector of their associated tool, so the language encoder's ground truth is a faithful reading of what the text requires.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding an attribute bottleneck between text and images gives a large accuracy gain over direct name matching, so attribute mediation is a viable design choice for tool selection.
  • Because frozen pretrained backbones suffice, a tool-selection system can be built with roughly 1.5 billion parameters and still perform near much larger multimodal models on familiar tool categories.
  • The dominant role of graspability, elongation, and hand-relatedness suggests that functional, manipulation-oriented properties are the active signal in both vision and language pathways.
  • The framework's benefit does not yet extend to unseen tools: on 25 novel categories it reaches only 22.6% Top-1 accuracy, compared with 91.2% for Gemini-2.0-Pro.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The scenario-generation protocol creates a label-leakage risk, because scenarios are generated from attribute vectors; if language models simply mirror those vectors, the claimed language-side understanding is weaker than it appears.
  • Editorial inference: Since manipulation-related attributes dominate, an automated expansion of the attribute space might improve both matching accuracy and generalization to novel tools beyond what the hand-chosen 13 dimensions achieve.
  • Editorial inference: The low model-human correlation on ambiguous scenarios suggests the attribute space omits factors humans use, such as availability, safety, or familiarity; adding such dimensions might raise alignment with human preferences.
  • Editorial inference: Because visual attribute prediction is far more accurate than language attribute prediction, the practical bottleneck for end-to-end tool selection lies in extracting task requirements from text, not in perceiving tool properties.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for flexible tool selection that maps both tool images and natural-language task descriptions into a shared 13-dimensional attribute space, then selects tools by similarity matching in that space. The authors construct the ToolNet dataset, comprising tool image-attribute pairs, a Gemini-generated scenario-attribute dataset, a 100-scenario tool matching test set, and a novel-tool generalization dataset. The visual pathway (ResNet/ViT with a regression head) achieves 96% attribute-wise accuracy, and the best language pathway (DeepSeek-R1-1.5B) achieves 74.34% attribute-wise accuracy. End-to-end, the DeepSeek-R1-1.5B + ResNet50 configuration reaches 74% accuracy on the 10-way tool selection task, which is reported as substantially better than a zero-shot direct name-matching baseline (20%) and competitive with larger multimodal models such as GPT-4o (73%) and Gemini-2.0-Pro (72%). The paper also reports human-evaluation alignment and novel-tool generalization results, with the latter showing limited performance (22.6% Top-1).

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the paper offers a parameter-efficient and interpretable alternative to large multimodal models for tool selection, with a concrete dataset and an openly described pipeline. The visual pathway results are solid and well measured against human attribute ratings, and the paper is transparent about limitations in human alignment and novel-tool generalization. The central scientific claim, however, depends on the language pathway's ability to extract task-required attributes from natural language, and that evidence is currently weakened by the circular construction of the scenario-attribute dataset and by a confounded comparison to the direct baseline. The paper also contributes an interpretable attribute space and a modular architecture that could be of interest to cognitive science and applied tool-selection systems, provided the experiments are reworked to remove the circularity and to add the missing control.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-A] The scenario-attribute dataset is constructed circularly. The text states: 'Each scenario is a natural language description of a tool-use situation and inherits the attribute vector of its associated tool.' The scenarios were generated by Gemini-2.0-flash-experimental using each tool's attribute ratings and attribute descriptions as prompts, and the same attribute vectors are then used as ground-truth labels for the language encoder. Consequently, the language attribute-wise accuracy reported in Fig. 3(b) (e.g., 74.34% for DeepSeek-R1-1.5B) measures how well the model inverts the text generator, not how well it independently infers task-required attributes from natural language. This is load-bearing because end-to-end matching in Eq. (5) depends directly on the language encoder. Please provide an evaluation on human-written scenarios, or on scenarios generated without conditioning on the attribute vectors, or otherwise demonstrate that the extracted attributes are not an artifact of the generation pipeline.
  2. [IV-C, Fig. 4(a)] The headline comparison of 74% versus 20% is confounded. The attribute-based system (DeepSeek-R1-1.5B + ResNet50) is trained on the Tool Scenario-Attribute Dataset, with up to 475 training scenarios per tool and a regression head to predict the 13 attribute values. The 'direct tool name matching' baseline, in contrast, is described as prompting DeepSeek-R1-1.5B to output the tool name from a candidate list without any attribute intermediate and with no fine-tuning. This conflates the effect of the attribute bottleneck with the effect of supervised training on the generated scenario distribution. The paper omits the essential control: fine-tune the same frozen language backbone with a classification head (over the 115 training tools, or directly over the 10 candidate names) on the same training scenarios and evaluate on the same 100-scenario test set. If such a trained direct classifier also achieves roughly 70% or higher, the reported advantage cannot be attributed to the attribute representation.
  3. [IV-C, III-A] The end-to-end test set is drawn from the same generative distribution as the training data. The 100-scenario Tool Matching Dataset is extracted from the testing portion of the Gemini-generated Tool Scenario-Attribute Dataset, which was itself generated from the attribute vectors that also produced the language-encoder training labels. Therefore the reported 74% accuracy is evaluated on a distribution that shares the generator's systematic regularities. This makes it difficult to assess how the framework would perform on naturally occurring task descriptions, which is the scenario that 'flexible tool selection' should target. Please report performance on human-written scenarios or on an independently sourced set of task descriptions to support the claim that attribute matching generalizes beyond the synthetic generation pipeline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-D] The ablation study states that it uses 'an extended dataset of 1,000 tool selection scenarios,' but the dataset construction in Section III-A describes only a 100-scenario Tool Matching Dataset. Please specify how the 1,000 scenarios were constructed and whether they come from the large scenario dataset, a new generation run, or another source.
  2. [III-A] The generation process is described as 'carefully crafted,' but the exact prompt template is only referenced as Fig. S3 and not shown in the main text. Please include the full prompt or a representative excerpt, and any filtering or post-processing steps, to enable reproducibility.
  3. [Table II, Fig. 4(a)] Accuracy values are reported as point estimates on a 100-scenario test set. Please report binomial confidence intervals or significance tests to assess whether differences such as 74% vs 73% or 74% vs 72% are meaningful.
  4. [IV-A] The metric 'most similar class accuracy' is described in prose but not defined formally. Please add an equation or explicit definition that mirrors the cosine-similarity matching used in the end-to-end system.
  5. [Overall] There are several typographical and labeling issues: 'Attritube Vector' appears in Fig. 2(c) and 2(d); the abstract contains 'demonstrates' where 'demonstrate' is needed; 'a evaluation' appears in Section IV-E; and the distribution plot in Fig. 2(b) is not clearly labeled in the caption. These should be corrected.
  6. [II-B] The related work section cites some references that are only loosely connected to the narrative (e.g., [56] on continual learning, [74] on interpretable tabby classification). Consider tightening the citations to focus on tool-related and attribute-based reasoning literature.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Scenario-attribute labels are the generator's own conditioning vectors, making the language pathway and 74% tool-matching result a self-confirming inversion loop.

  1. self definitional [Section III-A, Dataset Construction (Tool Scenario-Attribute Dataset and Tool Matching Dataset)]
    "The generation process leverages each tool’s attribute ratings and attribute descriptions to create natural language descriptions of tool usage scenarios. ... Each scenario is a natural language description of a tool-use situation and inherits the attribute vector of its associated tool."

    The scenario text is generated from the tool's attribute vector, and the same vector is then declared to be the scenario's ground-truth attribute label. The language encoder is trained to predict this label from the text, so its attribute predictions are a fitted inversion of the generator. The 100-scenario tool-matching test set is taken from the testing portion of the same generated dataset, so its labels are likewise inherited from the generator's conditioning input. Cosine matching then aligns a reconstructed version of the generator's input vector with the target tool's visual attribute vector, which is itself the vector used to create the scenario.

full rationale

The central loop is in Tool Scenario-Attribute Dataset construction: Gemini is prompted with each tool's human-rated attribute vector and attribute descriptions, and every generated scenario is automatically assigned that same attribute vector as its label. The language encoder is then trained to recover that vector from the text, and held-out test scenarios are produced by the same generation process with the same label-inheritance rule. Consequently, the reported language-pathway accuracy (74.34%) and end-to-end tool-selection accuracy (74%) are self-confirming with respect to the generator: the model is rewarded for reconstructing the conditioning input, and the target tool's visual attribute vector is the same vector that guided the scenario text. The visual side is not circular, because human ratings independently anchor the visual attribute predictor, and the generalization experiments also inherit the same generation loop for novel tools. Separately, the headline comparison against the 20% 'direct tool name matching' baseline is confounded: that baseline is zero-shot, while the attribute pipeline is fine-tuned on hundreds of generated scenarios per tool, so the gap does not isolate the attribute bottleneck. That confound is a validity concern rather than a construction-level circularity and is not counted beyond the central loop. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Score 6 reflects one central prediction that reduces by construction; the framework still has substantial independent components, especially the human-rated visual attributes and the image-attribute results.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on a hand-designed attribute space, a chosen similarity metric, and hand-tuned training hyperparameters. The most consequential assumption is that scenario text generated by an LLM inherits the same attribute vector used to prompt that generation, which introduces a partial circularity into the language pathway and the end-to-end benchmark. The visual pathway is grounded in independent human ratings, which limits but does not remove the circularity burden.

free parameters (3)
  • 13-attribute space design = 13 hand-selected dimensions
    The attribute set (elongation, spikiness, size, smoothness, texturedness, hardness, graspability, hand, force, body, threatness, valence, arousal) is chosen by the authors and not derived from a formal theory or data-driven search. The space determines what the encoders predict and what the matching operates on.
  • Similarity metric = cosine (with Euclidean also tested)
    The paper selects cosine similarity for the headline results after testing both cosine and negative Euclidean distance in Section III-B. The choice is a modeling decision, not derived from first principles.
  • Attribute prediction head hyperparameters = MLPs 256-64-13 (vision), 256-128-64-13 (language); learning rates 1e-4 and 5e-5
    MLP widths and learning rates are hand-chosen. They affect attribute prediction accuracy and therefore the final tool-selection results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All images within a tool category share the same attribute vector, the mean of 30 human ratings.
    Section III-A states 'All images within each tool category share the same attribute vector derived from human ratings.' This ignores within-category visual variation and may inflate image attribute accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Each generated scenario inherits the attribute vector of its associated tool as the ground truth for task requirements.
    Section III-A: 'Each scenario is a natural language description of a tool-use situation and inherits the attribute vector of its associated tool.' The text is generated from the attribute vector and the same vector becomes the supervision label, creating the circular loop.
  • domain assumption The 13 attribute dimensions suffice to capture task-relevant properties for tool selection.
    The paper assumes these physical, functional, and psychological dimensions are enough to distinguish suitable from unsuitable tools; no external benchmark validates completeness.
  • domain assumption Gemini-2.0-Flash-Experimental generates scenarios that faithfully reflect the intended tool attributes.
    Section III-A uses the LLM to create task descriptions based on attribute ratings. If the generator distorts or biases attributes, both training and test language distributions inherit the bias.
  • domain assumption The last token representation of the autoregressive language model captures the full context needed for attribute prediction.
    Section III-D2: 'We utilize the last token representation for attribute prediction, as this token inherently captures the cumulative context.' This is an architectural assumption with no direct validation.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in the 13-dimensional attribute space provides a valid measure of task-tool compatibility.
    Section III-B defines selection as argmax over similarity. No separate validation shows cosine distance in this space is a reliable proxy for human suitability beyond the reported benchmark.
invented entities (1)
  • 13-dimensional attribute space as an interpretable bridge
    purpose: Intermediate representation linking visual tool perception to linguistic task understanding; used for cross-modal matching.
    The attribute space is a human-authored construct. The paper provides internal ablations showing which attributes matter, but no external test (for example, predicting human suitability ratings in a new domain) independently validates the space. It is not a physical entity, but it is the paper's central invented representational device.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flexible Tool Selection through Low-dimensional Attribute Alignment of Vision and Language." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKG5YSS4

@misc{pith2026250522146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flexible Tool Selection through Low-dimensional Attribute Alignment of Vision and Language},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKG5YSS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22146}
}
read the original abstract

Flexible tool selection reflects a complex cognitive ability that distinguishes humans from other species, yet computational models that capture this ability remain underdeveloped. We developed a framework using low-dimensional attribute representations to bridge visual tool perception and linguistic task understanding. We constructed a comprehensive dataset (ToolNet) containing 115 common tools labeled with 13 carefully designed attributes spanning physical, functional, and psychological properties, paired with natural language scenarios describing tool usage. Visual encoders (ResNet or ViT) extract attributes from tool images while fine-tuned language models (GPT-2, LLaMA, DeepSeek) derive required attributes from task descriptions. Our approach achieves 74% accuracy in tool selection tasks-significantly outperforming direct tool matching (20%) and smaller multimodal models (21%-58%), while approaching performance of much larger models like GPT-4o (73%) with substantially fewer parameters. Human evaluation studies validate our framework's alignment with human decision-making patterns, and generalization experiments demonstrate effective performance on novel tool categories. Ablation studies revealed that manipulation-related attributes (graspability, elongation, hand-relatedness) consistently prove most critical across modalities. This work provides a parameter-efficient, interpretable solution that mimics human-like tool cognition, advancing both cognitive science understanding and practical applications in tool selection tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Attribute-based flexible tool selection framework. (a) Example task: When facing a situation like “I need to clean up spilled coffee grounds (No broom available)”, humans select suitable tools by matching task requirements with tool attributes. Among available tools (Hammer, Tongs, Paintbrush, Pincers, etc.), a paintbrush is selected as most appropriate based on attribute alignment. (b) Our computational framework u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Attribute space and the constructed datasets. (a) Visualization of the 13-dimensional attribute space through dimensionality reduction (PCA), showing well-distributed tool representations that effectively differentiate between tools. (b) Distribution of human ratings across different attributes, demonstrating the variability of attribute values across the tool collection. (c) Sample images from the ToolNet dataset, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance evaluation of visual and language models. (a) Test accuracy of visual models (ResNet18, ResNet50, ViT-B/16) on attribute prediction and most similar class identification tasks. ResNet50 achieves the highest performance with 96.05% attribute-wise accuracy and 92.70% most similar classes accuracy. (b) Training and testing attribute-wise accuracy of language models (GPT-2, LLaMA-3.2-1.2B, DeepSeek-R1-1.5B) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of our attribute-based approach against baseline and larger multimodal models. (a) Accuracy of different models on the tool selection task. Our approach using DeepSeek-R1-1.5B and ResNet50 achieved 74% accuracy, significantly outperforming direct…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of attribute importance, human performance, and model generalization. (a) Attribute ablation study showing the impact of removing individual attributes on performance across visual models, language models, and the combined system. Functional attributes (gras…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baber, Cognition and tool use: Forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools

    C. Baber, Cognition and tool use: Forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools . CRC Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    What’s so special about human tool use?

    S. H. Johnson-Frey, “What’s so special about human tool use?” Neuron, vol. 39, pp. 201–204, 07 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free- living chimpanzees,

    J. Goodall, “Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free- living chimpanzees,” Nature, vol. 201, no. 4926, pp. 1264–1266, 1964

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    Orangutans employ unique strategies to control branch flexibility,

    S. K. Thorpe, R. Holder, and R. H. Crompton, “Orangutans employ unique strategies to control branch flexibility,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 106, no. 31, pp. 12 646–12 651, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Tool use in a social insect and its implications for competitive interactions,

    J. H. Fellers and G. M. Fellers, “Tool use in a social insect and its implications for competitive interactions,” Science, vol. 192, no. 4234, pp. 70–72, 1976

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition,

    D. Stout, “Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biologi- cal Sciences, vol. 366, no. 1567, pp. 1050–1059, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool- making teaching and language,

    T. J. Morgan, N. T. Uomini, L. E. Rendell, L. Chouinard-Thuly, S. E. Street, H. M. Lewis, C. P. Cross, C. Evans, R. Kearney, I. de la Torre et al. , “Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool- making teaching and language,” Nature communications, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 6029, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Tool use as adaptation,

    D. Biro, M. Haslam, and C. Rutz, “Tool use as adaptation,” p. 20120408, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Human uniqueness in using tools and artifacts: flexibil- ity, variety, complexity,

    R. Heersmink, “Human uniqueness in using tools and artifacts: flexibil- ity, variety, complexity,” Synthese, vol. 200, no. 6, p. 442, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Symbols and mental programs: a hypothesis about human singularity,

    S. Dehaene, F. Al Roumi, Y . Lakretz, S. Planton, and M. Sabl ´e-Meyer, “Symbols and mental programs: a hypothesis about human singularity,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 751–766, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    The neural bases of complex tool use in humans,

    S. H. Johnson-Frey, “The neural bases of complex tool use in humans,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 71–78, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    The neural basis of tool use,

    G. Goldenberg and J. Spatt, “The neural basis of tool use,” Brain, vol. 132, pp. 1645–1655, 04 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    The cognitive bases of human tool use,

    K. Vaesen, “The cognitive bases of human tool use,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 35, pp. 203–218, 06 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    On the functional brain networks involved in tool-related action understanding,

    G. Federico, F. Osiurak, G. Ciccarelli, C. R. Ilardi, C. Cavaliere, L. Tramontano, V . Alfano, M. Migliaccio, A. Di Cecca, M. Salvatore et al., “On the functional brain networks involved in tool-related action understanding,” Communications Biology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1163, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge,

    A. Martin, C. L. Wiggs, L. G. Ungerleider, and J. V . Haxby, “Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge,” Nature, vol. 379, no. 6566, pp. 649–652, 1996

    1996

  8. [16]

    Actions speak louder than functions: the importance of manipulability and action in tool representation,

    M. L. Kellenbach, M. Brett, and K. Patterson, “Actions speak louder than functions: the importance of manipulability and action in tool representation,” Journal of cognitive neuroscience , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 30–46, 2003

    2003

  9. [17]

    A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain,

    A. G. Huth, S. Nishimoto, A. T. Vu, and J. L. Gallant, “A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain,” Neuron, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 1210–1224, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Looking for intoolligence: A unified framework for the cognitive study of human tool use and technology

    F. Osiurak and D. Heinke, “Looking for intoolligence: A unified framework for the cognitive study of human tool use and technology.” American Psychologist, vol. 73, pp. 169–185, 02 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    How to select and use tools? : Active perception of target objects using multimodal deep learning,

    N. Saito, T. Ogata, S. Funabashi, H. Mori, and S. Sugano, “How to select and use tools? : Active perception of target objects using multimodal deep learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2517–2524, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    What tool representation, intuitive physics, and action have in common: The brain’s first-person physics engine,

    J. Fischer and B. Z. Mahon, “What tool representation, intuitive physics, and action have in common: The brain’s first-person physics engine,” Cognitive neuropsychology, vol. 38, no. 7-8, pp. 455–467, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gpt-4o system card,

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford et al., “Gpt-4o system card,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gemini 2.0 pro model card,

    Google, “Gemini 2.0 pro model card,” Google Cloud Platform, Vertex AI, February 2025, experimental Model. [Online]. Available: https://www.prompthub.us/models/gemini-2-0-pro

    2025

  15. [23]

    The representation of tool use in humans and monkeys: common and uniquely human features,

    R. Peeters, L. Simone, K. Nelissen, M. Fabbri-Destro, W. Vanduffel, G. Rizzolatti, and G. A. Orban, “The representation of tool use in humans and monkeys: common and uniquely human features,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 37, pp. 11 523–11 539, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Decoding the neural mechanisms of human tool use,

    J. P. Gallivan, D. A. McLean, K. F. Valyear, and J. C. Culham, “Decoding the neural mechanisms of human tool use,” elife, vol. 2, p. e00425, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    The neural basis of human tool use,

    G. A. Orban and F. Caruana, “The neural basis of human tool use,” Frontiers in psychology, vol. 5, p. 310, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    The parietal lobe and tool use,

    A. Maravita and D. Romano, “The parietal lobe and tool use,” Handbook of clinical neurology , vol. 151, pp. 481–498, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools,

    S. T. Grafton, L. Fadiga, M. A. Arbib, and G. Rizzolatti, “Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools,” Neuroimage, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 231–236, 1997

    1997

  20. [28]

    Neural processes underlying tool use in humans, macaques, and corvids,

    M. J. Cabrera- ´Alvarez and N. S. Clayton, “Neural processes underlying tool use in humans, macaques, and corvids,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 11, p. 560669, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Semantic and action tool knowledge in the brain: Identifying common and distinct networks,

    M. Lesourd, M. Servant, J. Baumard, E. Reynaud, C. Ecochard, F. T. Medjaoui, A. Bartolo, and F. Osiurak, “Semantic and action tool knowledge in the brain: Identifying common and distinct networks,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 159, p. 107918, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Tool representations in human visual cortex,

    D. Cortinovis, M. V . Peelen, and S. Bracci, “Tool representations in human visual cortex,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 515–531, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    On the psychological origins of tool use,

    M. Mangalam, D. M. Fragaszy, J. B. Wagman, B. M. Day, D. G. Kelty-Stephen, R. M. Bongers, D. W. Stout, and F. Osiurak, “On the psychological origins of tool use,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 134, p. 104521, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use

    F. Osiurak, C. Jarry, and D. Le Gall, “Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use.” Psychological review, vol. 117, no. 2, p. 517, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Tool use and affordance: Manipulation- based versus reasoning-based approaches

    F. Osiurak and A. Badets, “Tool use and affordance: Manipulation- based versus reasoning-based approaches.” Psychological review, vol. 123, no. 5, p. 534, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia,

    G. Goldenberg and S. Hagmann, “Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 581–589, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. the technical reasoning model,

    F. Osiurak, C. Jarry, P. Allain, G. Aubin, F. Etcharry-Bouyx, I. Richard, I. Bernard, and D. Le Gall, “Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. the technical reasoning model,” Cortex, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 769–783, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: Distributed neurocognitive mechanisms: Comment on osiurak and badets (2016)

    L. J. Buxbaum, “Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: Distributed neurocognitive mechanisms: Comment on osiurak and badets (2016).” Psychological Review, 2017

    2016

  29. [37]

    Rapid trial-and- error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoning,

    K. R. Allen, K. A. Smith, and J. B. Tenenbaum, “Rapid trial-and- error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoning,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 117, no. 47, pp. 29 302–29 310, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Vqa: Visual question answering,

    S. Antol, A. Agrawal, J. Lu, M. Mitchell, D. Batra, C. L. Zitnick, and D. Parikh, “Vqa: Visual question answering,” inProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 2425–2433

    2015

  31. [39]

    Stacked attention networks for image question answering,

    Z. Yang, X. He, J. Gao, L. Deng, and A. Smola, “Stacked attention networks for image question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 21– 29

    2016

  32. [40]

    Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering,

    P. Anderson, X. He, C. Buehler, D. Teney, M. Johnson, S. Gould, and L. Zhang, “Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 6077–6086

    2018

  33. [41]

    Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee, “Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning,

    Y .-C. Chen, L. Li, L. Yu, A. El Kholy, F. Ahmed, Z. Gan, Y . Cheng, and J. Liu, “Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 104– 120

    2020

  35. [43]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  36. [44]

    From linguistic giants to sensory maestros: A survey on cross-modal reasoning with large language models,

    S. Qian, Z. Zhou, D. Xue, B. Wang, and C. Xu, “From linguistic giants to sensory maestros: A survey on cross-modal reasoning with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18996 , 2024. 14

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lvlm-ehub: A comprehensive evaluation bench- mark for large vision-language models,

    P. Xu, W. Shao, K. Zhang, P. Gao, S. Liu, M. Lei, F. Meng, S. Huang, Y . Qiao, and P. Luo, “Lvlm-ehub: A comprehensive evaluation bench- mark for large vision-language models,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    When scaling meets llm finetuning: The effect of data, model and finetuning method,

    B. Zhang, Z. Liu, C. Cherry, and O. Firat, “When scaling meets llm finetuning: The effect of data, model and finetuning method,” in ICLR, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    LLMs for Explainable AI: A Compre- hensive Survey,

    A. Bilal, D. Ebert, and B. Lin, “LLMs for Explainable AI: A Compre- hensive Survey,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technol- ogy, mar 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Improvisation through physical understanding: Using novel objects as tools with visual foresight,

    A. Xie, F. Ebert, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Improvisation through physical understanding: Using novel objects as tools with visual foresight,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05538, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Affordance detection of tool parts from geometric features,

    A. Myers, C. L. Teo, C. Ferm ¨uller, and Y . Aloimonos, “Affordance detection of tool parts from geometric features,” in 2015 IEEE interna- tional conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1374–1381

    2015

  42. [50]

    Metatool benchmark for large language models: Deciding whether to use tools and which to use,

    Y . Huang, J. Shi, Y . Li, C. Fan, S. Wu, Q. Zhang, Y . Liu, P. Zhou, Y . Wan, N. Z. Gong et al. , “Metatool benchmark for large language models: Deciding whether to use tools and which to use,” in ICLR, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Cnn features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition,

    A. Sharif Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan, and S. Carlsson, “Cnn features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2014, pp. 806–813

    2014

  44. [52]

    Do better imagenet models trans- fer better?

    S. Kornblith, J. Shlens, and Q. V . Le, “Do better imagenet models trans- fer better?” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 2661–2671

    2019

  45. [53]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  46. [54]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in ICLR, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Computer vision and deep transfer learning for automatic gauge reading detection,

    H. Ninama, J. Raikwal, A. Ravuri, D. Sukheja, S. K. Bhoi, N. Jhanjhi, A. A. H. Elnour, and A. Abdelmaboud, “Computer vision and deep transfer learning for automatic gauge reading detection,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 23019, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Continual learning of context- dependent processing in neural networks,

    G. Zeng, Y . Chen, B. Cui, and S. Yu, “Continual learning of context- dependent processing in neural networks,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 364–372, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Comparison of fine-tuning strategies for transfer learning in medical image classification,

    A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “Comparison of fine-tuning strategies for transfer learning in medical image classification,” Image and Vision Computing , vol. 146, p. 105012, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters,

    S.-A. Rebuffi, H. Bilen, and A. Vedaldi, “Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters,” Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistent,

    L. Beyer, X. Zhai, A. Royer, L. Markeeva, R. Anil, and A. Kolesnikov, “Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistent,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 925–10 934

    2022

  52. [60]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Improving language understanding by generative pre-training,

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, I. Sutskever et al., “Improving language understanding by generative pre-training,” 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Pro- ceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technolo...

    2019

  55. [63]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale et al. , “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report,

    A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Zhang, C. Ruan et al., “Deepseek-v3 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Evaluating commonsense in pre-trained language models,

    X. Zhou, Y . Zhang, L. Cui, and D. Huang, “Evaluating commonsense in pre-trained language models,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 34, no. 05, 2020, pp. 9733–9740

    2020

  58. [66]

    Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification,

    J. Howard and S. Ruder, “Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06146 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning,

    B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant, “The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation,

    X. L. Li and P. Liang, “Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen et al., “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.” ICLR, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Interaction between language and vision: It’s momentary, abstract, and it develops,

    B. Dessalegn and B. Landau, “Interaction between language and vision: It’s momentary, abstract, and it develops,” Cognition, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 331–344, 2013

    2013

  63. [71]

    Probing the link between vision and language in material perception using psychophysics and unsupervised learning,

    C. Liao, M. Sawayama, and B. Xiao, “Probing the link between vision and language in material perception using psychophysics and unsupervised learning,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 20, no. 10, p. e1012481, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Exploring technical reasoning in digital tool use,

    M. A. Renom, B. Caramiaux, and M. Beaudouin-Lafon, “Exploring technical reasoning in digital tool use,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2022, pp. 1–17

    2022

  65. [73]

    The technical- reasoning network is recruited when people observe others make or teach how to make tools: An fmri study,

    A. Bluet, E. Reynaud, G. Federico, C. Bryche, M. Lesourd, A. Fournel, F. Lamberton, D. Ibarrola, Y . Rossetti, and F. Osiurak, “The technical- reasoning network is recruited when people observe others make or teach how to make tools: An fmri study,” iScience, vol. 28, no. 2, 2025

    2025

  66. [74]

    What is a tabby? interpretable model decisions by learning attribute-based classification criteria,

    H. Liu, R. Wang, S. Shan, and X. Chen, “What is a tabby? interpretable model decisions by learning attribute-based classification criteria,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1791–1807, 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience,

    A. M. Loosen, A. Kato, and X. Gu, “Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience,” Neuropsychophar- macology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 103–113, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Tool use as distributed cognition: how tools help, hinder and define manual skill,

    C. Baber, M. Parekh, and T. G. Cengiz, “Tool use as distributed cognition: how tools help, hinder and define manual skill,” Frontiers in psychology, vol. 5, p. 116, 2014

    2014

  69. [77]

    On the use of simulation in robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and suggestions for moving forward,

    H. Choi, C. Crump, C. Duriez, A. Elmquist, G. Hager, D. Han, F. Hearl, J. Hodgins, A. Jain, F. Leve et al., “On the use of simulation in robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and suggestions for moving forward,” Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 118, no. ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.