A common belief in the representational comparison literature is that if two representations can be functionally aligned, they must capture similar information. In this paper we focus on model stitching and show that models can be functionally aligned, but represent very different information. Firstly, we show that discriminative models with very different biases can be stitched together. We then show that models trained to solve entirely different tasks on different data modalities, and even clustered random noise, can be successfully stitched into MNIST or ImageNet-trained models. We end with a discussion of the wider impact of our results on the community's current beliefs. Overall, our paper draws attention to the need to correctly interpret the results of such functional similarity measures and highlights the need for approaches that capture informational similarity.

Data distortion is commonly applied in vision models during both training (e.g methods like MixUp and CutMix) and evaluation (e.g. shape-texture bias and robustness). This data modification can introduce artificial information. It is often assumed that the resulting artefacts are detrimental to training, whilst being negligible when analysing models. We investigate these assumptions and conclude that in some cases they are unfounded and lead to incorrect results. Specifically, we show current shape bias identification methods and occlusion robustness measures are biased and propose a fairer alternative for the latter. Subsequently, through a series of experiments we seek to correct and strengthen the community’s perception of how augmenting affects learning of vision models. Based on our empirical results we argue that the impact of the artefacts must be understood and exploited rather than eliminated.

We consider mechanisms for the online allocation of perishable resources such as energy or computational power. A main application is electric vehicle charging where agents arrive and leave over time. Unlike previous work, we consider mechanisms without money, and a range of objectives including fairness and efficiency. In doing so, we extend the concept of envy-freeness to online settings. Furthermore, we explore the trade-offs between different objectives and analyse their theoretical properties both in online and offline settings. We then introduce novel online scheduling algorithms and compare them in terms of both their theoretical properties and empirical performance.