Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem

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.

Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become a widely used strategy for working with large language and multimodal models. While CoT has been shown to improve performance across many tasks, determining the settings in which it is effective remains an ongoing effort. In particular, it is still an open question in what settings CoT systematically reduces model performance. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of tasks where CoT reduces performance by drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, looking at cases where (i) verbal thinking or deliberation hurts performance in humans, and (ii) the constraints governing human performance generalize to language models. Three such cases are implicit statistical learning, visual recognition, and classifying with patterns containing exceptions. In extensive experiments across all three settings, we find that a diverse collection of state-of-the-art models exhibit significant drop-offs in performance (e.g., up to 36.3% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o) when using inference-time reasoning compared to zero-shot counterparts. We also identify three tasks that satisfy condition (i) but not (ii), and find that while verbal thinking reduces human performance in these tasks, CoT retains or increases model performance. Overall, our results show that while there is not an exact parallel between the cognitive processes of models and those of humans, considering cases where thinking has negative consequences for human performance can help us identify settings where it negatively impacts models. By connecting the literature on human deliberation with evaluations of CoT, we offer a new tool that can be used in understanding the impact of prompt choices and inference-time reasoning.

Centaur: a foundation model of human cognition

Establishing a unified theory of cognition has been a major goal of psychology. While there have been previous attempts to instantiate such theories by building computational models, we currently do not have one model that captures the human mind in its entirety. Here we introduce Centaur, a computational model that can predict and simulate human behavior in any experiment expressible in natural language. We derived Centaur by finetuning a state-of-the-art language model on a novel, large-scale data set called Psych-101. Psych-101 reaches an unprecedented scale, covering trial-by-trial data from over 60,000 participants performing over 10,000,000 choices in 160 experiments. Centaur not only captures the behavior of held-out participants better than existing cognitive models, but also generalizes to new cover stories, structural task modifications, and entirely new domains. Furthermore, we find that the model's internal representations become more aligned with human neural activity after finetuning. Taken together, Centaur is the first real candidate for a unified model of human cognition. We anticipate that it will have a disruptive impact on the cognitive sciences, challenging the existing paradigm for developing computational models.

Towards Foundation Models for 3D Vision: How Close Are We?

Building a foundation model for 3D vision is a complex challenge that remains unsolved. Towards that goal, it is important to understand the 3D reasoning capabilities of current models as well as identify the gaps between these models and humans. Therefore, we construct a new 3D visual understanding benchmark that covers fundamental 3D vision tasks in the Visual Question Answering (VQA) format. We evaluate state-of-the-art Vision-Language Models (VLMs), specialized models, and human subjects on it. Our results show that VLMs generally perform poorly, while the specialized models are accurate but not robust, failing under geometric perturbations. In contrast, human vision continues to be the most reliable 3D visual system. We further demonstrate that neural networks align more closely with human 3D vision mechanisms compared to classical computer vision methods, and Transformer-based networks such as ViT align more closely with human 3D vision mechanisms than CNNs. We hope our study will benefit the future development of foundation models for 3D vision.

Rational Metareasoning for Large Language Models

Being prompted to engage in reasoning has emerged as a core technique for using large language models (LLMs), deploying additional inference-time compute to improve task performance. However, as LLMs increase in both size and adoption, inference costs are correspondingly becoming increasingly burdensome. How, then, might we optimize reasoning's cost-performance tradeoff? This work introduces a novel approach based on computational models of metareasoning used in cognitive science, training LLMs to selectively use intermediate reasoning steps only when necessary. We first develop a reward function that incorporates the Value of Computation by penalizing unnecessary reasoning, then use this reward function with Expert Iteration to train the LLM. Compared to few-shot chain-of-thought prompting and STaR, our method significantly reduces inference costs (20-37\% fewer tokens generated across three models) while maintaining task performance across diverse datasets.

When a language model is optimized for reasoning, does it still show embers of autoregression? An analysis of OpenAI o1

In "Embers of Autoregression" (McCoy et al., 2023), we showed that several large language models (LLMs) have some important limitations that are attributable to their origins in next-word prediction. Here we investigate whether these issues persist with o1, a new system from OpenAI that differs from previous LLMs in that it is optimized for reasoning. We find that o1 substantially outperforms previous LLMs in many cases, with particularly large improvements on rare variants of common tasks (e.g., forming acronyms from the second letter of each word in a list, rather than the first letter). Despite these quantitative improvements, however, o1 still displays the same qualitative trends that we observed in previous systems. Specifically, o1 - like previous LLMs - is sensitive to the probability of examples and tasks, performing better and requiring fewer "thinking tokens" in high-probability settings than in low-probability ones. These results show that optimizing a language model for reasoning can mitigate but might not fully overcome the language model's probability sensitivity.

Capturing the Complexity of Human Strategic Decision-Making with Machine Learning

Understanding how people behave in strategic settings--where they make decisions based on their expectations about the behavior of others--is a long-standing problem in the behavioral sciences. We conduct the largest study to date of strategic decision-making in the context of initial play in two-player matrix games, analyzing over 90,000 human decisions across more than 2,400 procedurally generated games that span a much wider space than previous datasets. We show that a deep neural network trained on these data predicts people's choices better than leading theories of strategic behavior, indicating that there is systematic variation that is not explained by those theories. We then modify the network to produce a new, interpretable behavioral model, revealing what the original network learned about people: their ability to optimally respond and their capacity to reason about others are dependent on the complexity of individual games. This context-dependence is critical in explaining deviations from the rational Nash equilibrium, response times, and uncertainty in strategic decisions. More broadly, our results demonstrate how machine learning can be applied beyond prediction to further help generate novel explanations of complex human behavior.

Building Machines that Learn and Think with People

What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world.

Deciphering the Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Chain-of-Thought: Probability, Memorization, and Noisy Reasoning

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been shown to enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, debates persist about whether LLMs exhibit abstract generalization or rely on shallow heuristics when given CoT prompts. To understand the factors influencing CoT reasoning we provide a detailed case study of the symbolic reasoning task of decoding shift ciphers, where letters are shifted forward some number of steps in the alphabet. GPT-4 achieves zero accuracy on most shift ciphers with standard prompting, but with CoT its accuracy improves to an average of 32%. By focusing on a single relatively simple task, we are able to identify three factors that systematically affect CoT performance: the probability of the task's expected output (probability), what the model has implicitly learned during pre-training (memorization), and the number of intermediate operations involved in reasoning (noisy reasoning). We show that these factors can drastically influence the task accuracy; e.g., varying the output's probability of occurrence can shift accuracy from 26% to 70%. We also demonstrate that it is essential for the model to explicitly produce intermediate steps as output that can be conditioned on to increase the probability of the correct answer. Our experiments indicate that as long as the model does so, the validity of the demonstrations in the prompt does not matter. Overall, we conclude that CoT prompting performance reflects both memorization and a probabilistic version of genuine reasoning.

Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really are

In order for AI systems to communicate effectively with people, they must understand how we make decisions. However, people's decisions are not always rational, so the implicit internal models of human decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) must account for this. Previous empirical evidence seems to suggest that these implicit models are accurate -- LLMs offer believable proxies of human behavior, acting how we expect humans would in everyday interactions. However, by comparing LLM behavior and predictions to a large dataset of human decisions, we find that this is actually not the case: when both simulating and predicting people's choices, a suite of cutting-edge LLMs (GPT-4o & 4-Turbo, Llama-3-8B & 70B, Claude 3 Opus) assume that people are more rational than we really are. Specifically, these models deviate from human behavior and align more closely with a classic model of rational choice -- expected value theory. Interestingly, people also tend to assume that other people are rational when interpreting their behavior. As a consequence, when we compare the inferences that LLMs and people draw from the decisions of others using another psychological dataset, we find that these inferences are highly correlated. Thus, the implicit decision-making models of LLMs appear to be aligned with the human expectation that other people will act rationally, rather than with how people actually act.