Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Understanding the computational demands underlying visual reasoning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2108.03603 v2 pith:YRWGSJFN submitted 2021-08-08 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords visualreasoningattentionabilitycomputationalrelationstaskschallenge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Visual understanding requires comprehending complex visual relations between objects within a scene. Here, we seek to characterize the computational demands for abstract visual reasoning. We do this by systematically assessing the ability of modern deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn to solve the "Synthetic Visual Reasoning Test" (SVRT) challenge, a collection of twenty-three visual reasoning problems. Our analysis reveals a novel taxonomy of visual reasoning tasks, which can be primarily explained by both the type of relations (same-different vs. spatial-relation judgments) and the number of relations used to compose the underlying rules. Prior cognitive neuroscience work suggests that attention plays a key role in humans' visual reasoning ability. To test this hypothesis, we extended the CNNs with spatial and feature-based attention mechanisms. In a second series of experiments, we evaluated the ability of these attention networks to learn to solve the SVRT challenge and found the resulting architectures to be much more efficient at solving the hardest of these visual reasoning tasks. Most importantly, the corresponding improvements on individual tasks partially explained our novel taxonomy. Overall, this work provides an granular computational account of visual reasoning and yields testable neuroscience predictions regarding the differential need for feature-based vs. spatial attention depending on the type of visual reasoning problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools