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

Akshett Rai Jindal

dblp:374/8305 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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
1 paper
Vision and language · 44% Trustworthy machine learning · 44% Language models and text generation · 13%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 50% Bioinformatics and computational biology · 50%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › language model interpretability
brain alignment
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model
multimodal large language model
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience › neural response modeling
brain encoding model
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Medical and health informatics
neuroimaging
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning
0.312025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025

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

representational similarity analysis · 1.7fMRI · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain)
abstract
Transformer-based language models, though not explicitly trained to mimic brain recordings, have demonstrated surprising alignment with brain activity. Progress in these models—through increased size, instruction-tuning, and multimodality—has led to better representational alignment with neural data. Recently, a new class of instruction-tuned multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) have emerged, showing remarkable zero-shot capabilities in open-ended multimodal vision tasks. However, it is unknown whether MLLMs, when prompted with natural instructions, lead to better brain alignment and effectively capture instruction-specific representations. To address this, we first investigate the brain alignment, i.e., measuring the degree of predictivity of neural visual activity using text output response embeddings from MLLMs as participants engage in watching natural scenes. Experiments with 10 different instructions (like image captioning, visual question answering, etc.) show that MLLMs exhibit significantly better brain alignment than vision-only models and perform comparably to non-instruction-tuned multimodal models like CLIP. We also find that while these MLLMs are effective at generating high-quality responses suitable to the task-specific instructions, not all instructions are relevant for brain alignment. Further, by varying instructions, we make the MLLMs encode instruction-specific visual concepts related to the input image. This analysis shows that MLLMs effectively capture count-related and recognition-related concepts, demonstrating strong alignment with brain activity. Notably, the majority of the explained variance of the brain encoding models is shared between MLLM embeddings of image captioning and other instructions. These results indicate that enhancing MLLMs' ability to capture more task-specific information could allow for better differentiation between various types of instructions, and hence improve their precision in predicting brain responses.
Subba Reddy Oota, Akshett Rai Jindal, Ishani Mondal, Khushbu Pahwa, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Manish Shrivastava 0001, Maneesh Kumar Singh 0001, Raju S. Bapi, Manish Gupta 0001
ICLR2