Visual Anagrams Reveal Hidden Differences in Holistic Shape Processing Across Vision Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Humans are able to recognize objects based on both local texture cues and the configuration of object parts, yet contemporary vision models primarily harvest local texture cues, yielding brittle, non-compositional features. Work on shape-vs-texture bias has pitted shape and texture representations in opposition, measuring shape relative to texture, ignoring the possibility that models (and humans) can simultaneously rely on both types of cues, and obscuring the absolute quality of both types of representation. We therefore recast shape evaluation as a matter of absolute configural competence, operationalized by the Configural Shape Score (CSS), which (i) measures the ability to recognize both images in Object-Anagram pairs that preserve local texture while permuting global part arrangement to depict different object categories. Across 86 convolutional, transformer, and hybrid models, CSS (ii) uncovers a broad spectrum of configural sensitivity with fully self-supervised and language-aligned transformers -- exemplified by DINOv2, SigLIP2 and EVA-CLIP -- occupying the top end of the CSS spectrum. Mechanistic probes reveal that (iii) high-CSS networks depend on long-range interactions: radius-controlled attention masks abolish performance showing a distinctive U-shaped integration profile, and representational-similarity analyses expose a mid-depth transition from local to global coding. A BagNet control remains at chance (iv), ruling out "border-hacking" strategies. Finally, (v) we show that configural shape score also predicts other shape-dependent evals. Overall, we propose that the path toward truly robust, generalizable, and human-like vision systems may not lie in forcing an artificial choice between shape and texture, but rather in architectural and learning frameworks that seamlessly integrate both local-texture and global configural shape.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 48 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2025.
Builds on
48 of 71 references.
References · 48
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,109
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
- 2021BEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformerscited by 2,375
36 more
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
- 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
- 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,336
- 2025SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Featurescited by 1,188
- 2022Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learningcited by 1,173
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 871
- 2023EVA-CLIP: Improved Training Techniques for CLIP at Scalecited by 798
- 2019Big Transfer (BiT): General Visual Representation Learningcited by 769
- 2023ConvNeXt V2: Co-designing and Scaling ConvNets with Masked Autoencoderscited by 712
- 2022EVA: Exploring the Limits of Masked Visual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 691
- 2021How to train your ViT? Data, Augmentation, and Regularization in Vision Transformerscited by 569
- 2022Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Build Predictions by Promoting Concepts in the Vocabulary Spacecited by 532
- 2021Intriguing Properties of Vision Transformerscited by 446
- 2021ResNet strikes back: An improved training procedure in timmcited by 368
- 2020The Pitfalls of Simplicity Bias in Neural Networkscited by 351
- 2020Noise or Signal: The Role of Image Backgrounds in Object Recognitioncited by 343
- 2022BEiT v2: Masked Image Modeling with Vector-Quantized Visual Tokenizerscited by 303
- 2023Hiera: A Hierarchical Vision Transformer without the Bells-and-Whistlescited by 290
- 2019Approximating CNNs with Bag-of-local-Features models works surprisingly well on ImageNetcited by 260
- 2021Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistentcited by 259
- 2019Billion-scale semi-supervised learning for image classificationcited by 232
- 2021Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine visioncited by 185
- 2020What shapes feature representations? Exploring datasets, architectures, and trainingcited by 126
- 2018Learning long-range spatial dependencies with horizontal gated-recurrent unitscited by 98
- 2019Brain-Like Object Recognition with High-Performing Shallow Recurrent ANNscited by 90
- 2023On the Foundations of Shortcut Learningcited by 65
- 2023Intriguing properties of generative classifierscited by 52
- 2023Visual Anagrams: Generating Multi-View Optical Illusions with Diffusion Modelscited by 46
- 2023Spatial-frequency channels, shape bias, and adversarial robustnesscited by 28
- 2024Feat2GS: Probing Visual Foundation Models with Gaussian Splattingcited by 27
- 2024Understanding Visual Feature Reliance through the Lens of Complexitycited by 15
- 2023Emergence of Shape Bias in Convolutional Neural Networks through Activation Sparsitycited by 11
- 2022A Developmentally-Inspired Examination of Shape versus Texture Bias in Machinescited by 10
- 2024MindSet: Vision. A toolbox for testing DNNs on key psychological experimentscited by 8
- 2023Does resistance to style-transfer equal Global Shape Bias? Measuring network sensitivity to global shape configurationcited by 3
- 2024Configural processing as an optimized strategy for robust object recognition in neural networkscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Bi-Orthogonal Factor Decomposition for Vision Transformerscited by 5
- 2026On the Reliability of Cue Conflict and Beyondcited by 1
- 2026Human-like Object Grouping in Self-supervised Vision Transformerscited by 1
- 2026Human-like Object Grouping in Self-supervised Vision Transformers14 Mar 2026
- 2026On the Reliability of Cue Conflict and Beyond11 Mar 2026
- 2026Bi-Orthogonal Factor Decomposition for Vision Transformers8 Jan 2026