Training on the test set? An analysis of Spampinato et al. [arXiv:1609.00344]
A recent paper [arXiv:1609.00344] claims to classify brain processing evoked in subjects watching ImageNet stimuli as measured with EEG and to use a representation derived from this processing to create a novel object classifier. That paper, together with a series of subsequent papers [8, 15, 17, 20, 21, 30, 35], claims to revolutionize the field by achieving extremely successful results on several computer-vision tasks, including object classification, transfer learning, and generation of images depicting human perception and thought using brain-derived representations measured through EEG. Our novel experiments and analyses demonstrate that their results crucially depend on the block design that they use, where all stimuli of a given class are presented together, and fail with a rapid-event design, where stimuli of different classes are randomly intermixed. The block design leads to classification of arbitrary brain states based on block-level temporal correlations that tend to exist in all EEG data, rather than stimulus-related activity. Because every trial in their test sets comes from the same block as many trials in the corresponding training sets, their block design thus leads to surreptitiously training on the test set. This invalidates all subsequent analyses performed on this data in multiple published papers and calls into question all of the purported results. We further show that a novel object classifier constructed with a random codebook performs as well as or better than a novel object classifier constructed with the representation extracted from EEG data, suggesting that the performance of their classifier constructed with a representation extracted from EEG data does not benefit at all from the brain-derived representation. Our results calibrate the underlying difficulty of the tasks involved and caution against sensational and overly optimistic, but false, claims to the contrary.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
AllEEGElectroencephalogram (EEG)General ClassificationObjectTransfer LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
How Emotionally Stable is ALBERT? Testing Robustness with Stochastic Weight Averaging on a Sentiment Analysis Task
Despite their success, modern language models are fragile. Even small changes in their training pipeline can lead to unexpected results. We study this phenomenon by examining the robustness of ALBERT (arXiv:1909.11942) i…
Sentiment AnalysisSST-2Multimodal ArXiv: A Dataset for Improving Scientific Comprehension of Large Vision-Language Models
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) excel across diverse tasks involving concrete images from natural scenes. However, their ability to interpret abstract figures, such as geometry shapes and scientific plots, remains l…
BenchmarkingMathematical ReasoningQuestion AnsweringHow Much Do Large Language Model Cheat on Evaluation? Benchmarking Overestimation under the One-Time-Pad-Based Framework
Overestimation in evaluating large language models (LLMs) has become an increasing concern. Due to the contamination of public benchmarks or imbalanced model training, LLMs may achieve unreal evaluation results on public…
The Sample Complexity of Distributed Simple Binary Hypothesis Testing under Information Constraints
This paper resolves two open problems from a recent paper, arXiv:2403.16981, concerning the sample complexity of distributed simple binary hypothesis testing under information constraints. The first open problem asks whe…
Search over Self-Edit Strategies for LLM Adaptation
Many LLM-based open-ended search systems freeze the foundation model that proposes improvements to existing solutions, which may bottleneck long-run progress. Recent work has explored updating the proposal model at test …