Rapid categorization paradigms have a long history in experimental psychology: Characterized by short presentation times and speeded behavioral responses, these tasks highlight the efficiency with which our visual system processes natural object categories. Previous studies have shown that feed-forward hierarchical models of the visual cortex provide a good fit to human visual decisions. At the same time, recent work in computer vision has demonstrated significant gains in object recognition accuracy with increasingly deep hierarchical architectures. But it is unclear how well these models account for human visual decisions and what they may reveal about the underlying brain processes. We have conducted a large-scale psychophysics study to assess the correlation between computational models and human behavioral responses on a rapid animal vs. non-animal categorization task. We considered visual representations of varying complexity by analyzing the output of different stages of processing in three state-of-the-art deep networks. We found that recognition accuracy increases with higher stages of visual processing (higher level stages indeed outperforming human participants on the same task) but that human decisions agree best with predictions from intermediate stages. Overall, these results suggest that human participants may rely on visual features of intermediate complexity and that the complexity of visual representations afforded by modern deep network models may exceed the complexity of those used by human participants during rapid categorization.

Reconstructing past events requires reasoning across long time horizons. To figure out what happened, humans draw on prior knowledge about the world and human behavior and integrate insights from various sources of evidence including visual, language, and auditory cues. We introduce MARPLE, a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon inference capabilities using multi-modal evidence. Our benchmark features agents interacting with simulated households, supporting vision, language, and auditory stimuli, as well as procedurally generated environments and agent behaviors. Inspired by classic ``whodunit'' stories, we ask AI models and human participants to infer which agent caused a change in the environment based on a step-by-step replay of what actually happened.

Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable.

Despite recent advances in understanding visual and auditory perception, olfactory perception remains an under-explored topic in the machine learning community due to the lack of large-scale datasets annotated with labels of human olfactory perception. In this work, we ask the question of whether pre-trained transformer models of chemical structures encode representations that are aligned with human olfactory perception, i.e., can transformers smell like humans? We demonstrate that representations encoded from transformers pre-trained on general chemical structures are highly aligned with human olfactory perception. We use multiple datasets and different types of perceptual representations to show that the representations encoded by transformer models are able to predict: (i) labels associated with odorants provided by experts; (ii) continuous ratings provided by human participants with respect to pre-defined descriptors; and (iii) similarity ratings between odorants provided by human participants. Finally, we evaluate the extent to which this alignment is associated with physicochemical features of odorants known to be relevant for olfactory decoding.

We present the first comprehensive evaluation of AI agents against human cybersecurity professionals in a live enterprise environment. We evaluate ten cybersecurity professionals alongside six existing AI agents and ARTEMIS, our new agent scaffold, on a large university network consisting of ~8,000 hosts across 12 subnets. ARTEMIS is a multi-agent framework featuring dynamic prompt generation, arbitrary sub-agents, and automatic vulnerability triaging. In our comparative study, ARTEMIS placed second overall, discovering 9 valid vulnerabilities with an 82% valid submission rate and outperforming 9 of 10 human participants. While existing scaffolds such as Codex and CyAgent underperformed relative to most human participants, ARTEMIS demonstrated technical sophistication and submission quality comparable to the strongest participants. We observe that AI agents offer advantages in systematic enumeration, parallel exploitation, and cost -- certain ARTEMIS variants cost $18/hour versus $60/hour for professional penetration testers. We also identify key capability gaps: AI agents exhibit higher false-positive rates and struggle with GUI-based tasks.

Humans interpret safety not as a binary signal but as a continuous, context- and spatially-dependent notion of risk. While risk is subjective, humans form rational mental models that guide action selection in dynamic environments. This work proposes a framework for extracting implicit human risk models by introducing a novel, semantically-conditioned and spatially-varying parametrization of risk, supervised directly from safe human demonstration videos and VLM common sense. Notably, we define risk through a Bayesian formulation. The prior is furnished by a pretrained vision-language model. In order to encourage the risk estimate to be more human aligned, a likelihood function modulates the prior to produce a relative metric of risk. Specifically, the likelihood is a learned ViT that maps pretrained features, to pixel-aligned risk values. Our pipeline ingests RGB images and a query object string, producing pixel-dense risk images. These images that can then be used as value-predictors in robot planning tasks or be projected into 3D for use in conventional trajectory optimization to produce human-like motion. This learned mapping enables generalization to novel objects and contexts, and has the potential to scale to much larger training datasets. In particular, the Bayesian framework that is introduced enables fast adaptation of our model to additional observations or common sense rules. We demonstrate that our proposed framework produces contextual risk that aligns with human preferences. Additionally, we illustrate several downstream applications of the model; as a value learner for visuomotor planners or in conjunction with a classical trajectory optimization algorithm. Our results suggest that our framework is a significant step toward enabling autonomous systems to internalize human-like risk. Code and results can be found at https://riskbayesian.github.io/bayesian_risk/.

Action recognition is also key for applications ranging from robotics to healthcare monitoring. Action information can be extracted from the body pose and movements, as well as from the background scene. However, the extent to which deep neural networks (DNNs) make use of information about the body and information about the background remains unclear. Since these two sources of information may be correlated within a training dataset, DNNs might learn to rely predominantly on one of them, without taking full advantage of the other. Unlike DNNs, humans have domain-specific brain regions selective for perceiving bodies, and regions selective for perceiving scenes. The present work tests whether humans are thus more effective at extracting information from both body and background, and whether building brain-inspired deep network architectures with separate domain-specific streams for body and scene perception endows them with more human-like performance. We first demonstrate that DNNs trained using the HAA500 dataset perform almost as accurately on versions of the stimuli that show both body and background and on versions of the stimuli from which the body was removed, but are at chance-level for versions of the stimuli from which the background was removed. Conversely, human participants (N=28) can recognize the same set of actions accurately with all three versions of the stimuli, and perform significantly better on stimuli that show only the body than on stimuli that show only the background. Finally, we implement and test a novel architecture patterned after domain specificity in the brain with separate streams to process body and background information. We show that 1) this architecture improves action recognition performance, and 2) its accuracy across different versions of the stimuli follows a pattern that matches more closely the pattern of accuracy observed in human participants.

Rapid categorization paradigms have a long history in experimental psychology: Characterized by short presentation times and speeded behavioral responses, these tasks highlight the efficiency with which our visual system processes natural object categories. Previous studies have shown that feed-forward hierarchical models of the visual cortex provide a good fit to human visual decisions. At the same time, recent work in computer vision has demonstrated significant gains in object recognition accuracy with increasingly deep hierarchical architectures. But it is unclear how well these models account for human visual decisions and what they may reveal about the underlying brain processes. We have conducted a large-scale psychophysics study to assess the correlation between computational models and human behavioral responses on a rapid animal vs. non-animal categorization task. We considered visual representations of varying complexity by analyzing the output of different stages of processing in three state-of-the-art deep networks. We found that recognition accuracy increases with higher stages of visual processing (higher level stages indeed outperforming human participants on the same task) but that human decisions agree best with predictions from intermediate stages. Overall, these results suggest that human participants may rely on visual features of intermediate complexity and that the complexity of visual representations afforded by modern deep network models may exceed the complexity of those used by human participants during rapid categorization.