Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

R. T. Pramod

dblp:191/4647 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-5933-7893ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 38% Image recognition and object detection · 27% Language models and text generation · 23%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.822022
Improving Machine Vision Using Human Perceptual Representations: The Case of Planar Reflection Symmetry for Object Classification · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2022
Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception? · CVPR 2016
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › image classification
object classification
0.612022
Improving Machine Vision Using Human Perceptual Representations: The Case of Planar Reflection Symmetry for Object Classification · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2022
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
human alignment
0.212016
Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception? · CVPR 2016
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
human-model comparison
0.212016
Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception? · CVPR 2016
Computer vision › 3D vision
object representation
0.212016
Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception? · CVPR 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

symmetry scores · 0.6perceptual distance prediction · 0.6convolutional neural network · 0.6representational similarity analysis · 0.2dissimilarity measurement · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Elements of World Knowledge (EWoK): A Cognition-Inspired Framework for Evaluating Basic World Knowledge in Language Models
Anna A. Ivanova, Aalok Sathe, Benjamin Lipkin, Unnathi U. Kumar, Setayesh Radkani, Thomas Hikaru Clark, Carina Kauf, Jennifer Hu 0001, R. T. Pramod, Gabriel Grand, Vivian C. Paulun, Maria Ryskina, Ekin Akyürek, Ethan Wilcox, Nafisa Rashid, Leshem Choshen, Roger Levy, Evelina Fedorenko, Josh Tenenbaum, Jacob Andreas
Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics9
2024 A region in human left prefrontal cortex selectively engaged in causal reasoning
R. T. Pramod, Jessica Chomik, Laura Schulz, Nancy Kanwisher
CogSci1
2022 Improving Machine Vision Using Human Perceptual Representations: The Case of Planar Reflection Symmetry for Object Classification
abstract
Achieving human-like visual abilities is a holy grail for machine vision, yet precisely how insights from human vision can improve machines has remained unclear. Here, we demonstrate two key conceptual advances: First, we show that most machine vision models are systematically different from human object perception. To do so, we collected a large dataset of perceptual distances between isolated objects in humans and asked whether these perceptual data can be predicted by many common machine vision algorithms. We found that while the best algorithms explain ∼ 70 percent of the variance in the perceptual data, all the algorithms we tested make systematic errors on several types of objects. In particular, machine algorithms underestimated distances between symmetric objects compared to human perception. Second, we show that fixing these systematic biases can lead to substantial gains in classification performance. In particular, augmenting a state-of-the-art convolutional neural network with planar/reflection symmetry scores along multiple axes produced significant improvements in classification accuracy (1-10 percent) across categories. These results show that machine vision can be improved by discovering and fixing systematic differences from human vision.
R. T. Pramod, S. P. Arun
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.1
2016 Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception?
abstract
Recent advances in neural networks have revolutionized computer vision, but these algorithms are still outperformed by humans. Could this performance gap be due to systematic differences between object representations in humans and machines? To answer this question we collected a large dataset of 26,675 perceived dissimilarity measurements from 2,801 visual objects across 269 human subjects, and used this dataset to train and test leading computational models. The best model (a combination of all models) accounted for 68% of the explainable variance. Importantly, all computational models showed systematic deviations from perception: (1) They underestimated perceptual distances between objects with symmetry or large area differences, (2) They overestimated perceptual distances between objects with shared features. Our results reveal critical elements missing in computer vision algorithms and point to explicit encoding of these properties in higher visual areas in the brain.
R. T. Pramod, S. P. Arun
CVPR1