Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1709.06126

How intelligent are convolutional neural networks?

Abstract

Motivated by the Gestalt pattern theory, and the Winograd Challenge for language understanding, we design synthetic experiments to investigate a deep learning algorithm's ability to infer simple (at least for human) visual concepts, such as symmetry, from examples. A visual concept is represented by randomly generated, positive as well as negative, example images. We then test the ability and speed of algorithms (and humans) to learn the concept from these images. The training and testing are performed progressively in multiple rounds, with each subsequent round deliberately designed to be more complex and confusing than the previous round(s), especially if the concept was not grasped by the learner. However, if the concept was understood, all the deliberate tests would become trivially easy. Our experiments show that humans can often infer a semantic concept quickly after looking at only a very small number of examples (this is often referred to as an "aha moment": a moment of sudden realization), and performs perfectly during all testing rounds (except for careless mistakes). On the contrary, deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) could approximate some concepts statistically, but only after seeing many (x10^4) more examples. And it will still make obvious mistakes, especially during deliberate testing rounds or on samples outside the training distributions. This signals a lack of true "understanding", or a failure to reach the right "formula" for the semantics. We did find that some concepts are easier for DCNN than others. For example, simple "counting" is more learnable than "symmetry", while "uniformity" or "conformance" are much more difficult for DCNN to learn. To conclude, we propose an "Aha Challenge" for visual perception, calling for focused and quantitative research on Gestalt-style machine intelligence using limited training examples.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhennan Yan, Xiang Sean Zhou. 2017-10-31. How intelligent are convolutional neural networks?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06126

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Privacy Leakage on DNNs: A Survey of Model Inversion Attacks and Defenses

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have revolutionized various domains with their exceptional performance across numerous applications. However, Model Inversion (MI) attacks, which disclose private information about the training dataset by abusing access to the trained models, have emerged as a formidable privacy threat. Given a trained network, these attacks enable adversaries to reconstruct high-fidelity data that closely aligns with the private training samples, posing significant privacy concerns. Despite the rapid advances in the field, we lack a comprehensive and systematic overview of existing MI attacks and defenses. To fill this gap, this paper thoroughly investigates this realm and presents a holistic survey. Firstly, our work briefly reviews early MI studies on traditional machine learning scenarios. We then elaborately analyze and compare numerous recent attacks and defenses on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) across multiple modalities and learning tasks. By meticulously analyzing their distinctive features, we summarize and classify these methods into different categories and provide a novel taxonomy. Finally, this paper discusses promising research directions and presents potential solutions to open issues. To facilitate further study on MI attacks and defenses, we have implemented an open-source model inversion toolbox on GitHub (https://github.com/ffhibnese/Model-Inversion-Attack-ToolBox).

cs.CV

ALINA: Advanced Line Identification and Notation Algorithm

Labels are the cornerstone of supervised machine learning algorithms. Most visual recognition methods are fully supervised, using bounding boxes or pixel-wise segmentations for object localization. Traditional labeling methods, such as crowd-sourcing, are prohibitive due to cost, data privacy, amount of time, and potential errors on large datasets. To address these issues, we propose a novel annotation framework, Advanced Line Identification and Notation Algorithm (ALINA), which can be used for labeling taxiway datasets that consist of different camera perspectives and variable weather attributes (sunny and cloudy). Additionally, the CIRCular threshoLd pixEl Discovery And Traversal (CIRCLEDAT) algorithm has been proposed, which is an integral step in determining the pixels corresponding to taxiway line markings. Once the pixels are identified, ALINA generates corresponding pixel coordinate annotations on the frame. Using this approach, 60,249 frames from the taxiway dataset, AssistTaxi have been labeled. To evaluate the performance, a context-based edge map (CBEM) set was generated manually based on edge features and connectivity. The detection rate after testing the annotated labels with the CBEM set was recorded as 98.45%, attesting its dependability and effectiveness.

cs.CV

DisasterInsight: A Building-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Vision--Language Models in Disaster Response

Vision--language models (VLMs) show promise for disaster-response remote sensing, but existing benchmarks mainly emphasize scene-level or damage-centric assessment. To study this building-centric gap, we introduce \method{}, a diagnostic benchmark built on xBD, a pre/post-disaster satellite dataset with building-level damage labels. \method{} enriches building instances with OpenStreetMap-derived functional labels and contains 134{,}108 task-specific instruction records across 15 task types, spanning instance-level assessment, scene-level counting, multi-instance reasoning, and structured report generation. The benchmark supports RGB pre/post-disaster imagery, single- and multi-view instance formulations, and scene-level RGB/SAR diagnostic inputs. Experiments with general-domain and remote-sensing VLMs show that models perform better on visible damage cues than on building-function understanding, multi-instance reasoning, counting, and grounded reporting. Instruction tuning improves performance on several tasks but does not close this building-centric gap.

cs.CV