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

Taylor W. Webb

dblp:183/6144 · also Taylor Whittington Webb · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
20ranked-venue papers
5as first author
15since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 20 · 5 first-author · 15 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 11 · 2 first-author · 7 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
9 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 24% Vision and language · 22% Trustworthy machine learning · 16%

Topics — the 25 heaviest of 27, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.622025
Caption This, Reason That: VLMs Caught in the Middle · NeurIPS 2025
Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem · NeurIPS 2024
Computer vision › Vision and language
visual reasoning
1.522025
Caption This, Reason That: VLMs Caught in the Middle · NeurIPS 2025
Learning to reason over visual objects · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer
1.022024
Abstractors and relational cross-attention: An inductive bias for explicit relational reasoning in Transformers · ICLR 2024
Slot Abstractors: Toward Scalable Abstract Visual Reasoning · ICML 2024
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
abstract reasoning
0.912025
Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.912025
Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › logic-based reasoning
symbolic reasoning
0.912025
Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model
0.912025
Caption This, Reason That: VLMs Caught in the Middle · NeurIPS 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › abstract reasoning
abstract visual reasoning
0.812024
Slot Abstractors: Toward Scalable Abstract Visual Reasoning · ICML 2024
Computer vision › Vision and language › compositionality
binding problem
0.812024
Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › model debugging
failure mode analysis
0.812024
Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem · NeurIPS 2024
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal reasoning
0.812024
Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
object-centric representation learning
0.812024
Slot Abstractors: Toward Scalable Abstract Visual Reasoning · ICML 2024
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
relational reasoning
0.812024
Abstractors and relational cross-attention: An inductive bias for explicit relational reasoning in Transformers · ICLR 2024
Computer vision › 3D vision
object-centric reasoning
0.712023
Learning to reason over visual objects · ICLR 2023
Computer vision › 3D vision
object representation
0.712023
Systematic Visual Reasoning through Object-Centric Relational Abstraction · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
relational abstraction
0.712023
Systematic Visual Reasoning through Object-Centric Relational Abstraction · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
systematic generalization
0.712023
Systematic Visual Reasoning through Object-Centric Relational Abstraction · NeurIPS 2023
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › semantic representation
symbolic representation
0.512021
Emergent Symbols through Binding in External Memory · ICLR 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization
extrapolation
0.412020
Learning Representations that Support Extrapolation · ICML 2020
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.312025
Caption This, Reason That: VLMs Caught in the Middle · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability
0.312025
Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory
inductive bias
0.212024
Abstractors and relational cross-attention: An inductive bias for explicit relational reasoning in Transformers · ICLR 2024
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
scene understanding
0.212023
Learning to reason over visual objects · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.112020
Learning Representations that Support Extrapolation · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
out-of-distribution generalization
0.112020
Learning Representations that Support Extrapolation · ICML 2020

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

vision-text decoupling · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9circuit analysis · 0.9chain-of-thought prompting · 0.9attention head analysis · 0.9slot attention · 0.8relational inductive bias · 0.8relational cross-attention · 0.8attention mechanism · 0.8abstractors · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 How do LLMs Solve Multi-step Reasoning? An Algorithmic Evaluation
Oliver Eberle, Thomas McGee, Hamza Giaffar, Taylor W. Webb, Ida Momennejad
CogSci4
2025 Few-Shot Learning of Visual Compositional Concepts through Probabilistic Schema Induction
Andrew Jun Lee, Taylor W. Webb, Trevor J. Bihl, Keith J. Holyoak, Hongjing Lu
CogSci2
2025 Cognitively Inspired Interpretability in Large Neural Networks
Anna Leshinskaya, Taylor W. Webb, Ellie Pavlick, Jiahai Feng, Gustaw Opielka, Claire E. Stevenson, Idan A. Blank
CogSci2
2025 Non-linear relational composition in large language models
Michael B. McCoy, Taylor W. Webb, Anna Leshinskaya
CogSci2
2025 Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models
abstract
Many recent studies have found evidence for emergent reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), but debate persists concerning the robustness of these capabilities, and the extent to which they depend on structured reasoning mechanisms. To shed light on these issues, we study the internal mechanisms that support abstract reasoning in LLMs. We identify an emergent symbolic architecture that implements abstract reasoning via a series of three computations. In early layers, symbol abstraction heads convert input tokens to abstract variables based on the relations between those tokens. In intermediate layers, symbolic induction heads perform sequence induction over these abstract variables. Finally, in later layers, retrieval heads predict the next token by retrieving the value associated with the predicted abstract variable. These results point toward a resolution of the longstanding debate between symbolic and neural network approaches, suggesting that emergent reasoning in neural networks depends on the emergence of symbolic mechanisms.
Yukang Yang, Declan Campbell, Kaixuan Huang, Mengdi Wang 0001, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, Taylor W. Webb
ICML6
2025 Caption This, Reason That: VLMs Caught in the Middle
abstract
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown remarkable progress in visual understanding in recent years. Yet, they still lag behind human capabilities in specific visual tasks such as counting or relational reasoning. To understand the underlying limitations, we adopt methodologies from cognitive science, analyzing VLM performance along core cognitive axes: Perception, Attention, and Memory. Using a suite of tasks targeting these abilities, we evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs, including GPT-4o. Our analysis reveals distinct cognitive profiles: while advanced models approach ceiling performance on some tasks (e.g. category identification), a significant gap persists, particularly in tasks requiring spatial understanding or selective attention. Investigating the source of these failures and potential methods for improvement, we employ a vision-text decoupling analysis, finding that models struggling with direct visual reasoning show marked improvement when reasoning over their own generated text captions. These experiments reveal a strong need for improved VLM Chain-of-Thought (CoT) abilities, even in models that consistently exceed human performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate the potential of targeted fine-tuning on composite visual reasoning tasks and show that fine-tuning smaller VLMs moderately improves core cognitive abilities. While this improvement does not translate to large enhancements on challenging, out-of-distribution benchmarks, we show broadly that VLM performance on our datasets strongly correlates with performance on established benchmarks like MMMU-Pro and VQAv2. Our work provides a detailed analysis of VLM cognitive strengths and weaknesses and identifies key bottlenecks in simultaneous perception and reasoning while also providing an effective and simple solution.
Zihan Weng, Lucas Gomez, Taylor W. Webb, Pouya Bashivan
NeurIPS3
2024 Higher cognition in large language models
Nicholas Ichien, Sudeep Bhatia, Anna A. Ivanova, Taylor W. Webb, Thomas L. Griffiths 0001, Marcel Binz
CogSci4
2024 Abstractors and relational cross-attention: An inductive bias for explicit relational reasoning in Transformers
abstract
An extension of Transformers is proposed that enables explicit relational reasoning through a novel module called the *Abstractor*. At the core of the Abstractor is a variant of attention called *relational cross-attention*. The approach is motivated by an architectural inductive bias for relational learning that disentangles relational information from object-level features. This enables explicit relational reasoning, supporting abstraction and generalization from limited data. The Abstractor is first evaluated on simple discriminative relational tasks and compared to existing relational architectures. Next, the Abstractor is evaluated on purely relational sequence-to-sequence tasks, where dramatic improvements are seen in sample efficiency compared to standard Transformers. Finally, Abstractors are evaluated on a collection of tasks based on mathematical problem solving, where consistent improvements in performance and sample efficiency are observed.
Awni Altabaa, Taylor W. Webb, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, John D. Lafferty
ICLR2
2024 Slot Abstractors: Toward Scalable Abstract Visual Reasoning
abstract
Abstract visual reasoning is a characteristically human ability, allowing the identification of relational patterns that are abstracted away from object features, and the systematic generalization of those patterns to unseen problems. Recent work has demonstrated strong systematic generalization in visual reasoning tasks involving multi-object inputs, through the integration of slot-based methods used for extracting object-centric representations coupled with strong inductive biases for relational abstraction. However, this approach was limited to problems containing a single rule, and was not scalable to visual reasoning problems containing a large number of objects. Other recent work proposed Abstractors, an extension of Transformers that incorporates strong relational inductive biases, thereby inheriting the Transformer’s scalability and multi-head architecture, but it has yet to be demonstrated how this approach might be applied to multi-object visual inputs. Here we combine the strengths of the above approaches and propose Slot Abstractors, an approach to abstract visual reasoning that can be scaled to problems involving a large number of objects and multiple relations among them. The approach displays state-of-the-art performance across four abstract visual reasoning tasks, as well as an abstract reasoning task involving real-world images.
Shanka Subhra Mondal, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, Taylor W. Webb
ICML3
2024 Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem
abstract
Recent work has documented striking heterogeneity in the performance of state-of-the-art vision language models (VLMs), including both multimodal language models and text-to-image models. These models are able to describe and generate a diverse array of complex, naturalistic images, yet they exhibit surprising failures on basic multi-object reasoning tasks -- such as counting, localization, and simple forms of visual analogy -- that humans perform with near perfect accuracy. To better understand this puzzling pattern of successes and failures, we turn to theoretical accounts of the binding problem in cognitive science and neuroscience, a fundamental problem that arises when a shared set of representational resources must be used to represent distinct entities (e.g., to represent multiple objects in an image), necessitating the use of serial processing to avoid interference. We find that many of the puzzling failures of state-of-the-art VLMs can be explained as arising due to the binding problem, and that these failure modes are strikingly similar to the limitations exhibited by rapid, feedforward processing in the human brain.
Declan Campbell, Sunayana Rane, Tyler Giallanza, Nicolò De Sabbata, Kia Ghods, Amogh Joshi 0004, Alexander Ku, Steven Frankland, Thomas L. Griffiths 0001, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, Taylor W. Webb
NeurIPS11
2023 Learning to reason over visual objects
Shanka Subhra Mondal, Taylor W. Webb, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
ICLR2
2023 Systematic Visual Reasoning through Object-Centric Relational Abstraction
abstract
Human visual reasoning is characterized by an ability to identify abstract patterns from only a small number of examples, and to systematically generalize those patterns to novel inputs. This capacity depends in large part on our ability to represent complex visual inputs in terms of both objects and relations. Recent work in computer vision has introduced models with the capacity to extract object-centric representations, leading to the ability to process multi-object visual inputs, but falling short of the systematic generalization displayed by human reasoning. Other recent models have employed inductive biases for relational abstraction to achieve systematic generalization of learned abstract rules, but have generally assumed the presence of object-focused inputs. Here, we combine these two approaches, introducing Object-Centric Relational Abstraction (OCRA), a model that extracts explicit representations of both objects and abstract relations, and achieves strong systematic generalization in tasks (including a novel dataset, CLEVR-ART, with greater visual complexity) involving complex visual displays.
Taylor W. Webb, Shanka Subhra Mondal, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
NeurIPS1
2021 Modelling the development of counting with memory-augmented neural networks
Zachary Dulberg, Taylor W. Webb, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
CogSci2
2021 A Task-Optimized Neural Network Model of Decision Confidence
Taylor W. Webb, Kiyofumi Miyoshi, Tsz Yan So, Hakwan Lau
CogSci1
2021 Emergent Symbols through Binding in External Memory
Taylor W. Webb, Ishan Sinha, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
ICLR1
2020 A memory-augmented neural network model of abstract sequential reasoning
Ishan Sinha, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, Taylor W. Webb
CogSci3
2020 Learning Representations that Support Extrapolation
abstract
Extrapolation – the ability to make inferences that go beyond the scope of one’s experiences – is a hallmark of human intelligence. By contrast, the generalization exhibited by contemporary neural network algorithms is largely limited to interpolation between data points in their training corpora. In this paper, we consider the challenge of learning representations that support extrapolation. We introduce a novel visual analogy benchmark that allows the graded evaluation of extrapolation as a function of distance from the convex domain defined by the training data. We also introduce a simple technique, temporal context normalization, that encourages representations that emphasize the relations between objects. We find that this technique enables a significant improvement in the ability to extrapolate, considerably outperforming a number of competitive techniques.
Taylor W. Webb, Zachary Dulberg, Steven Frankland, Alexander A. Petrov, Randall C. O'Reilly, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
ICML1
2019 Extracting and Utilizing Abstract, Structured Representations for Analogy
Steven Frankland, Taylor W. Webb, Alexander A. Petrov, Randall C. O'Reilly, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
CogSci2
2019 Understanding interactions amongst cognitive control, learning and representation
Sebastian Musslick, Abigail Novick Hoskin, Taylor W. Webb, Steven Frankland, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, Rebecca L. Jackson, Matthew A. Lambon Ralph, Lang Chen, Timothy T. Rogers, Randall C. O'Reilly, Alexander A. Petrov
CogSci3
2019 A tradeoff between generalization and perceptual capacity in recurrent neural networks
Taylor W. Webb, Steven Frankland, Simon N. Segert, Alexander A. Petrov, Randall C. O'Reilly, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003
CogSci1