Modeling The Object Representations Underlying Human Physical Reasoning

arXiv:2602.12486v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Humans appear to represent objects when reasoning about physics with coarse, volumetric "bodies" that smooth concavities, trading fine visual detail for efficient physical predictions. Yet, the structure of these representations remains largely unknown. Segmentation models, in contrast, are trained for pixel-accurate masks that may misalign with such bodies. We ask whether and when these models nonetheless acquire human-like object representations. Using a time-to-collision (TTC) and change detection (CD) behavioral task with data from 178 and 50 human participants, respectively, we introduce a pipeline and an alignment metric to compare the visual representations of segmentation models to those of humans. We do this systematically on multiple architectures (DINOv2, SegFormer, DeepLabV3+, and UPerNet), varying their size and training time. We find that briefly trained models segment objects too coarsely, aligning poorly with humans, while fully trained models segment objects too finely. For each model, there is an intermediate training regime that best matches the coarse bodies observed in human behaviour, and larger models tend to reach it earlier. We show these bodies emerge under resource constraints in general-purpose vision models, providing computational support to resource-rational accounts of human cognition. This work provides a foundational framework for testing alignment between vision models and humans and shows there is a growing gap between the state-of-the-art in artificial intelligence and human cognition, driven by scaling model size and training.

Abstract:Humans appear to represent objects when reasoning about physics with coarse, volumetric "bodies" that smooth concavities, trading fine visual detail for efficient physical predictions. Yet, the structure of these representations remains largely unknown. Segmentation models, in contrast, are trained for pixel-accurate masks that may misalign with such bodies. We ask whether and when these models nonetheless acquire human-like object representations. Using a time-to-collision (TTC) and change detection (CD) behavioral task with data from 178 and 50 human participants, respectively, we introduce a pipeline and an alignment metric to compare the visual representations of segmentation models to those of humans. We do this systematically on multiple architectures (DINOv2, SegFormer, DeepLabV3+, and UPerNet), varying their size and training time. We find that briefly trained models segment objects too coarsely, aligning poorly with humans, while fully trained models segment objects too finely. For each model, there is an intermediate training regime that best matches the coarse bodies observed in human behaviour, and larger models tend to reach it earlier. We show these bodies emerge under resource constraints in general-purpose vision models, providing computational support to resource-rational accounts of human cognition. This work provides a foundational framework for testing alignment between vision models and humans and shows there is a growing gap between the state-of-the-art in artificial intelligence and human cognition, driven by scaling model size and training.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2602.12486 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2602.12486v2 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.12486 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Modeling The Object Representations Underlying Human Physical Reasoning

Related coverage