Directional Confusions Reveal Divergent Inductive Biases Through Rate-Distortion Geometry in Human and Machine Vision

arXiv cs.CV / 4/24/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper shows that human and deep vision models can achieve similar accuracy while having systematically different error patterns—specifically in the direction of confusion rather than overall error rate.
  • By comparing matched human and model responses across a natural-image categorization task with 12 perturbation types, the researchers quantify asymmetries in confusion matrices and explain them using a rate-distortion (RD) framework.
  • The RD framework uses three geometric signatures (slope β, curvature κ, and efficiency AUC) to reveal inductive biases that accuracy alone cannot capture.
  • Humans tend to show broad but weak asymmetries, while deep vision models produce sparser, stronger directional “collapses” of confusion.
  • Robustness training can reduce global asymmetry, but it does not recreate the human-like graded breadth-strength profile, and mechanistic simulations suggest these asymmetry structures shift the RD frontier in opposite ways.

Abstract

Humans and modern vision models can reach similar classification accuracy while making systematically different kinds of mistakes - differing not in how often they err, but in who gets mistaken for whom, and in which direction. We show that these directional confusions reveal distinct inductive biases that are invisible to accuracy alone. Using matched human and deep vision model responses on a natural-image categorization task under 12 perturbation types, we quantify asymmetry in confusion matrices and link it to generalization geometry through a Rate-Distortion (RD) framework, summarized by three geometric signatures (slope (beta), curvature (kappa)) and efficiency (AUC). We find that humans exhibit broad but weak asymmetries, whereas deep vision models show sparser, stronger directional collapses. Robustness training reduces global asymmetry but fails to recover the human-like breadth-strength profile of graded similarity. Mechanistic simulations further show that different asymmetry organizations shift the RD frontier in opposite directions, even when matched for performance. Together, these results position directional confusions and RD geometry as compact, interpretable signatures of inductive bias under distribution shift.