arXiv:2606.17410cs.CV2026-06

比较视觉语言模型与人类注视模式,发现解码器类型对注意力对齐影响最大。

Attention Alignment Between Humans and Vision-Language Models

论文配图:Attention Alignment Between Humans and Vision-Language Models
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 对比六种模型与人类注视图,解码器架构显著影响注意力对齐度。
  • LSTM解码器使对齐率提升40–50个百分点,达80–87%的人类噪声天花板。
  • 尽管对齐度高,但LSTM模型注意力分布分散,任务区分能力弱。

视觉感知依赖于自上而下的目标和自下而上的感官机制。本研究将视觉语言模型的两个组件分别视为独立假设,以分析其对注视位置的影响。在200张图像上,通过两项任务(通用描述与社交描述)记录人类注视热图,并与六种视觉语言模型的空间注意力图进行对比。模型涵盖CNN与ViT编码器,搭配LSTM与Transformer解码器,还包括Molmo 7B-D与Qwen3.5 9B。结果表明,解码器架构主导注意力对齐,使用LSTM解码器时对齐率达80–87%(相对于人类噪声天花板),而使用Transformer则为40–59%;编码器方面,CNN相比ViT带来5–20个百分点的优势,其中CNN-LSTM模型对齐最高(85–87%)。然而,尽管对齐度高,LSTM解码器的注意力分布空间弥散且任务区分性差;相反,性能最差的ViT-Transformer模型具有最强的空间聚焦与任务差异。半侧忽视模拟实验显示,注意力删减对LSTM解码器影响更大。在基于TRIBE的合成神经响应探索中,注意力对齐与神经相关性分离:尽管对齐较低,但CNN-Transformer模型更准确预测合成脑活动,尤其在早期视觉皮层表现最优。说明自上而下与自下而上成分在行为与神经数据预测中存在权衡。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Visual perception depends on top-down goals and bottom-up sensory mechanisms. Vision-language models implement both, allowing us to treat each component as a separable hypothesis about what drives where we look. We compared spatial attention maps from six vision-language models against human fixation heatmaps recorded on 200 images during two tasks (general description and social captioning). The six models spanned a 2$\times$2 factorial of CNN vs.\ ViT encoders crossed with LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders, plus Molmo 7B-D and Qwen3.5 9B. We found that both decoder and encoder architecture shaped alignment, but decoder choice dominated. LSTM vs.\ Transformer decoders increased alignment by 40--50 percentage points (80--87\% vs.\ 40--59\% of the human noise ceiling). In contrast, CNN vs.\ ViT encoders contributed a secondary 5--20 point advantage depending on decoder family, with CNN-LSTM the most aligned model overall (85--87\%). Despite their alignment advantage, LSTM-decoder attention maps were spatially diffuse and minimally task-differentiated; ViT-Transformer, the weakest in alignment, showed the sharpest spatial concentration and strongest task differentiation. A hemispatial-neglect simulation confirmed that ablating attention impacted LSTM decoders more than Transformer decoders. In an exploratory extension using TRIBE-simulated synthetic neural responses, fixation alignment and neural relevance dissociate: CNN-Transformer attention maps better predicted synthetic brain activity despite lower fixation alignment, with attention maps best predicting early visual cortex. Together, top-down and bottom-up components trade off what they predict in behavioral and synthetic neural data.

视觉语言模型注意力对齐人机对比神经预测

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。