Prior theory work on Contrastive Learning via the InfoNCE loss showed that, under certain assumptions, the learned representations recover the ground-truth latent factors. We argue that these theories overlook crucial aspects of how CL is deployed in practice. Specifically, they either assume equal variance across all latents or that certain latents are kept invariant. However, in practice, positive pairs are often generated using augmentations such as strong cropping to just a few pixels. Hence, a more realistic assumption is that all latent factors change with a continuum of variability across all factors. We introduce AnInfoNCE, a generalization of InfoNCE that can provably uncover the latent factors in this anisotropic setting, broadly generalizing previous identifiability results in CL. We validate our identifiability results in controlled experiments and show that AnInfoNCE increases the recovery of previously collapsed information in CIFAR10 and ImageNet, albeit at the cost of downstream accuracy. Finally, we discuss the remaining mismatches between theoretical assumptions and practical implementations.

Out-of-Domain (OOD) generalization is the ability of a model trained on one or more domains to generalize to unseen domains. In the ImageNet era of computer vision, evaluation sets for measuring a model's OOD performance were designed to be strictly OOD with respect to style. However, the emergence of foundation models and expansive web-scale datasets has obfuscated this evaluation process, as datasets cover a broad range of domains and risk test domain contamination. In search of the forgotten domain generalization, we create large-scale datasets subsampled from LAION---LAION-Natural and LAION-Rendition---that are strictly OOD to corresponding ImageNet and DomainNet test sets in terms of style. Training CLIP models on these datasets reveals that a significant portion of their performance is explained by in-domain examples. This indicates that the OOD generalization challenges from the ImageNet era still prevail and that training on web-scale data merely creates the illusion of OOD generalization. Furthermore, through a systematic exploration of combining natural and rendition datasets in varying proportions, we identify optimal mixing ratios for model generalization across these domains. Our datasets and results re-enable meaningful assessment of OOD robustness at scale---a crucial prerequisite for improving model robustness.

Out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness is a desired property of computer vision models. Improving model robustness requires high-quality signals from robustness benchmarks to quantify progress. While various benchmark datasets such as ImageNet-C were proposed in the ImageNet era, most ImageNet-C corruption types are no longer OOD relative to today's large, web-scraped datasets, which already contain common corruptions such as blur or JPEG compression artifacts. Consequently, these benchmarks are no longer well-suited for evaluating OOD robustness in the era of web-scale datasets. Indeed, recent models show saturating scores on ImageNet-era OOD benchmarks, indicating that it is unclear whether models trained on web-scale datasets truly become better at OOD generalization or whether they have simply been exposed to the test distortions during training. To address this, we introduce LAION-C as a benchmark alternative for ImageNet-C. LAION-C consists of six novel distortion types specifically designed to be OOD, even for web-scale datasets such as LAION. In a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art models, we find that the LAION-C dataset poses significant challenges to contemporary models, including MLLMs such as Gemini and GPT-4o. We additionally conducted a psychophysical experiment to evaluate the difficulty of our corruptions for human observers, enabling a comparison of models to lab-quality human robustness data. We observe a paradigm shift in OOD generalization: from humans outperforming models, to the best models now matching or outperforming the best human observers.

How do neural networks extract patterns from pixels? Feature visualizations attempt to answer this important question by visualizing highly activating patterns through optimization. Today, visualization methods form the foundation of our knowledge about the internal workings of neural networks, as a type of mechanistic interpretability. Here we ask: How reliable are feature visualizations? We start our investigation by developing network circuits that trick feature visualizations into showing arbitrary patterns that are completely disconnected from normal network behavior on natural input. We then provide evidence for a similar phenomenon occurring in standard, unmanipulated networks: feature visualizations are processed very differently from standard input, casting doubt on their ability to "explain" how neural networks process natural images. This can be used as a sanity check for feature visualizations. We underpin our empirical findings by theory proving that the set of functions that can be reliably understood by feature visualization is extremely small and does not include general black-box neural networks. Therefore, a promising way forward could be the development of networks that enforce certain structures in order to ensure more reliable feature visualizations.

In today’s era, whatever we can measure at scale, we can optimize. So far, measuring the interpretability of units in deep neural networks (DNNs) for computer vision still requires direct human evaluation and is not scalable. As a result, the inner workings of DNNs remain a mystery despite the remarkable progress we have seen in their applications. In this work, we introduce the first scalable method to measure the per-unit interpretability in vision DNNs. This method does not require any human evaluations, yet its prediction correlates well with existing human interpretability measurements. We validate its predictive power through an interventional human psychophysics study. We demonstrate the usefulness of this measure by performing previously infeasible experiments: (1) A large-scale interpretability analysis across more than 70 million units from 835 computer vision models, and (2) an extensive analysis of how units transform during training. We find an anticorrelation between a model's downstream classification performance and per-unit interpretability, which is also observable during model training. Furthermore, we see that a layer's location and width influence its interpretability.

Learning structured representations of the visual world in terms of objects promises to significantly improve the generalization abilities of current machine learning models. While recent efforts to this end have shown promising empirical progress, a theoretical account of when unsupervised object-centric representation learning is possible is still lacking. Consequently, understanding the reasons for the success of existing object-centric methods as well as designing new theoretically grounded methods remains challenging. In the present work, we analyze when object-centric representations can provably be learned without supervision. To this end, we first introduce two assumptions on the generative process for scenes comprised of several objects, which we call compositionality and irreducibility. Under this generative process, we prove that the ground-truth object representations can be identified by an invertible and compositional inference model, even in the presence of dependencies between objects. We empirically validate our results through experiments on synthetic data. Finally, we provide evidence that our theory holds predictive power for existing object-centric models by showing a close correspondence between models’ compositionality and invertibility and their empirical identifiability.

In light of the recent widespread adoption of AI systems, understanding the internal information processing of neural networks has become increasingly critical. Most recently, machine vision has seen remarkable progress by scaling neural networks to unprecedented levels in dataset and model size. We here ask whether this extraordinary increase in scale also positively impacts the field of mechanistic interpretability. In other words, has our understanding of the inner workings of scaled neural networks improved as well? We use a psychophysical paradigm to quantify one form of mechanistic interpretability for a diverse suite of nine models and find no scaling effect for interpretability - neither for model nor dataset size. Specifically, none of the investigated state-of-the-art models are easier to interpret than the GoogLeNet model from almost a decade ago. Latest-generation vision models appear even less interpretable than older architectures, hinting at a regression rather than improvement, with modern models sacrificing interpretability for accuracy. These results highlight the need for models explicitly designed to be mechanistically interpretable and the need for more helpful interpretability methods to increase our understanding of networks at an atomic level. We release a dataset containing more than 130'000 human responses from our psychophysical evaluation of 767 units across nine models. This dataset facilitates research on automated instead of human-based interpretability evaluations, which can ultimately be leveraged to directly optimize the mechanistic interpretability of models.

Hundreds of defenses have been proposed to make deep neural networks robust against minimal (adversarial) input perturbations. However, only a handful of these defenses held up their claims because correctly evaluating robustness is extremely challenging: Weak attacks often fail to find adversarial examples even if they unknowingly exist, thereby making a vulnerable network look robust. In this paper, we propose a test to identify weak attacks and, thus, weak defense evaluations. Our test slightly modifies a neural network to guarantee the existence of an adversarial example for every sample. Consequentially, any correct attack must succeed in breaking this modified network. For eleven out of thirteen previously-published defenses, the original evaluation of the defense fails our test, while stronger attacks that break these defenses pass it. We hope that attack unit tests - such as ours - will be a major component in future robustness evaluations and increase confidence in an empirical field that is currently riddled with skepticism.

Contrastive learning has recently seen tremendous success in self-supervised learning. So far, however, it is largely unclear why the learned representations generalize so effectively to a large variety of downstream tasks. We here prove that feedforward models trained with objectives belonging to the commonly used InfoNCE family learn to implicitly invert the underlying generative model of the observed data. While the proofs make certain statistical assumptions about the generative model, we observe empirically that our findings hold even if these assumptions are severely violated. Our theory highlights a fundamental connection between contrastive learning, generative modeling, and nonlinear independent component analysis, thereby furthering our understanding of the learned representations as well as providing a theoretical foundation to derive more effective contrastive losses.

A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a unit to be activated - an advantage over other alternatives like strongly activating dataset samples. If humans indeed gain causal insight from visualizations, this should enable them to predict the effect of an intervention, such as how occluding a certain patch of the image (say, a dog's head) changes a unit's activation. Here, we test this hypothesis by asking humans to decide which of two square occlusions causes a larger change to a unit's activation.Both a large-scale crowdsourced experiment and measurements with experts show that on average the extremely activating feature visualizations by Olah et al. (2017) indeed help humans on this task ($68 \pm 4$% accuracy; baseline performance without any visualizations is $60 \pm 3$%). However, they do not provide any substantial advantage over other visualizations (such as e.g. dataset samples), which yield similar performance ($66\pm3$% to $67 \pm3$% accuracy). Taken together, we propose an objective psychophysical task to quantify the benefit of unit-level interpretability methods for humans, and find no evidence that a widely-used feature visualization method provides humans with better "causal understanding" of unit activations than simple alternative visualizations.