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

Santiago Galella

dblp:437/9829 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as 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 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
1 paper
Representation and self-supervised learning · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
neural representation analysis
0.912025
Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
representation geometry
0.912025
Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience
0.912025
Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025

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

nonlinear dimensionality · 1.7linear dimensionality · 1.7fMRI · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks
abstract
Biological and artificial vision systems both rely on hierarchical architectures, yet it remains unclear how their representational geometry evolves across processing stages, and what functional consequences may arise from potential differences. In this work, we systematically quantify and compare the linear and nonlinear dimensionality of human brain activity (fMRI) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) during natural image viewing. In the human ventral visual stream, both dimensionality measures increase along the visual hierarchy, supporting the emergence of semantic and abstract representations. For linear dimensionality, most ANNs show a similar increase, but only for pooled features, emphasizing the importance of appropriate feature readouts in brain–model comparisons. In contrast, nonlinear dimensionality shows a collapse in the later layers of ANNs, pointing at a mismatch in representational geometry between the human and artificial visual systems. This mismatch may have functional consequences: while high-dimensional brain representations support flexible generalization to abstract features, ANNs appear to lose this capacity in later layers, where their representations become overly compressed. Overall, our findings propose dimensionality alignment as a benchmark for building more flexible and biologically grounded vision models.
Santiago Galella, Maren H. Wehrheim, Matthias Kaschube
NeurIPS1