System identification of neural systems: If we got it right, would we know?

Yena Han,Tomaso Poggio,Brian Cheung
2023-08-31
Abstract:Artificial neural networks are being proposed as models of parts of the brain. The networks are compared to recordings of biological neurons, and good performance in reproducing neural responses is considered to support the model's validity. A key question is how much this system identification approach tells us about brain computation. Does it validate one model architecture over another? We evaluate the most commonly used comparison techniques, such as a linear encoding model and centered kernel alignment, to correctly identify a model by replacing brain recordings with known ground truth models. System identification performance is quite variable; it also depends significantly on factors independent of the ground truth architecture, such as stimuli images. In addition, we show the limitations of using functional similarity scores in identifying higher-level architectural motifs.
Neurons and Cognition,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve? This paper aims to explore and evaluate the effectiveness of current system identification methods for comparing artificial neural networks with biological nervous systems. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following key questions: 1. **Effectiveness of system identification methods**: Can current system identification methods (such as linear coding models and centered kernel alignment) accurately identify model architectures that match the brain's computational mechanisms? In other words, can these methods verify that one model architecture is superior to another? 2. **Relationship between functional similarity and architectural similarity**: Can functional similarity (i.e., the similarity between model units and brain neuron responses) be a reliable indicator of architectural similarity? For example, can functional similarity effectively constrain architecture selection, thereby reducing the need for anatomical - level testing? 3. **Impact of different stimulus images**: What is the impact of different types of stimulus images (such as synthetic objects, texture noise, ImageNet images, etc.) on system identification performance? Do more natural image statistics help to better identify models? 4. **Challenges in identifying high - level architectural features**: When evaluating models, how to deal with the challenges of identifying key high - level architectural features (such as recurrent connections or attention mechanisms)? Are these features crucial for visual processing? ### Research background In recent years, artificial neural networks have been widely used as models of parts of the brain and their performance has been evaluated by comparison with biological neuron recordings. However, the effectiveness of this system identification method has not been fully verified. The author simulated an idealized experimental environment by using data generated from known real models instead of actual brain recordings to evaluate the reliability of commonly used comparison techniques. ### Main research contents - **Linear regression and centered kernel alignment**: The performance of these two commonly used comparison methods in different situations (such as different layers, different model architectures) was studied. - **Identifiability index**: An identifiability index was defined to quantify the selectivity of prediction scores when the source model matches the target model architecture. - **Impact of stimulus images**: The impact of different types of stimulus images on system identification performance was analyzed. - **Identification of high - level architectural features**: The challenges of identifying key high - level architectural features (such as recurrent connections, attention mechanisms) were explored. ### Conclusion The research shows that current system identification methods may not be able to accurately distinguish between models with different architectures in some cases, especially in the early layers and when using non - natural stimulus images. In addition, functional similarity does not always reliably predict architectural similarity, indicating that further improvement and development of new evaluation methods are required to better understand the brain's computational mechanisms. Through these studies, the author hopes to provide guidance for future research, especially in how to choose more appropriate evaluation methods and stimulus images when designing and evaluating brain - inspired models.