A novel feature-scrambling approach reveals the capacity of convolutional neural networks to learn spatial relations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are one of the most successful computer vision systems to solve object recognition. Furthermore, CNNs have major applications in understanding the nature of visual representations in the human brain. Yet it remains poorly understood how CNNs actually make their decisions, what the nature of their internal representations is, and how their recognition strategies differ from humans. Specifically, there is a major debate about the question of whether CNNs primarily rely on surface regularities of objects, or whether they are capable of exploiting the spatial arrangement of features, similar to humans. Here, we develop a novel feature-scrambling approach to explicitly test whether CNNs use the spatial arrangement of features (i.e. object parts) to classify objects. We combine this approach with a systematic manipulation of effective receptive field sizes of CNNs as well as minimal recognizable configurations (MIRCs) analysis. In contrast to much previous literature, we provide evidence that CNNs are in fact capable of using relatively long-range spatial relationships for object classification. Moreover, the extent to which CNNs use spatial relationships depends heavily on the dataset, e.g. texture vs. sketch. In fact, CNNs even use different strategies for different classes within heterogeneous datasets (ImageNet), suggesting CNNs have a continuous spectrum of classification strategies. Finally, we show that CNNs learn the spatial arrangement of features only up to an intermediate level of granularity, which suggests that intermediate rather than global shape features provide the optimal trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in object classification. These results provide novel insights into the nature of CNN representations and the extent to which they rely on the spatial arrangement of features for object classification.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2022.
Builds on
13 of 68 references.
References · 13
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
- 2017Zero-Shot Learning -- A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Good, the Bad and the Uglycited by 538
- 2020The Pitfalls of Simplicity Bias in Neural Networkscited by 351
- 2019Approximating CNNs with Bag-of-local-Features models works surprisingly well on ImageNetcited by 260
- 2018Generalisation in humans and deep neural networkscited by 237
- 2021Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine visioncited by 185
- 2017Measuring the tendency of CNNs to Learn Surface Statistical Regularitiescited by 87
- 2014Deep Neural Networks Rival the Representation of Primate IT Cortex for Core Visual Object Recognitioncited by 50
- 2017Cognitive Psychology for Deep Neural Networks: A Shape Bias Case Studycited by 46
- 2021The Emergence of the Shape Bias Results from Communicative Efficiencycited by 13
- 2022A Developmentally-Inspired Examination of Shape versus Texture Bias in Machinescited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.