arXiv subjects

Trinidad Borrell

Publications and source records attributed to Trinidad Borrell.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Platonic Brain: Representational Convergence in EEG Foundation Models

The Platonic Representation Hypothesis (PRH) predicts that artificial neural networks converge on shared representations as scale and performance increase. We test whether these predictions hold for representations of the human brain with EEG foundation models. Using EEG recordings from six participants watching a television series, together with aligned visual and language content, we tested whether EEG foundation-model representations converge within and across modalities as their embeddings become better at decoding an informative set of EEG markers. We found that EEG models with greater decodability showed stronger cross-family alignment in both local neighbourhood similarity and global structure, not consistently increasing with model parameter count. Cross-modal convergence was modality and metric dependent: greater EEG decodability was associated with stronger global alignment to language, but not consistently to vision models, while local alignment showed no consistent association. This dissociation may reflect local sensitivity to low-level sensory features, whereas global geometry may capture weaker shared semantic structure.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Humans Correct Their Judgments Through Debate, but Weaker AI Models Do Not

How can we effectively oversee AI systems that surpass human intelligence? AI Safety via Debate proposes that two AI systems argue opposing positions and a judge, either a human or a weaker model, decides which is correct. By facilitating supervisors in providing high-quality training signals, debate aims to encourage truthful and safe behavior from AI systems whose capabilities exceed our own. However, human judgment is not neutral: people often rely on biases which advanced AI systems may learn to exploit. Drawing on insights from collective intelligence and social cognition, this paper investigates whether debate can guide human and LLM supervisors toward the truth despite their prior beliefs. We evaluate several protocol configurations. We also explore setups inspired by the wisdom of the crowd such as the number and diversity of judges, as well as interaction mechanisms including deliberation and voting. Overall, we find that debate increases accuracy relative to prior beliefs for human judges, whereas the consultancy baseline, in which a single expert argues for one answer, does not. For weaker language models, however, the results are mixed: debate provides no comparable gains in most settings and can even reduce accuracy. Among multi-judge protocols, weighted voting produces the highest accuracy for human supervisors, whereas for LLMs none of them significantly improves group accuracy, even as the number of judges increases. Notably, the behavior of minority judges in non-diverse deliberation protocols suggests that, under symmetric settings, incorrect positions could be more persuasive than correct ones. These findings support debate as a viable path toward scalable human oversight, but cast doubt on its benefits for weaker AI supervisors, raising concerns about fully automated training and control pipelines in high-stakes settings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Platonic Universe: Do Foundation Models See the Same Sky?

We investigate when foundation models converge towards shared representations, and how this convergence depends on model capacity, training regime, and model architecture. We take a `science-for-AI' approach, using astronomy as an experimental instrument to test the Platonic Representation Hypothesis and its Aristotelian refinement against an external physical reference. The historical success of astrophysics is evidence that a compact, modality-invariant description of galaxy observables exists, and so representation convergence toward reality should be measurable against the physical parameters astronomers already use. Given this framework, we evaluate eleven foundation model families (spanning classification, self-distillation, joint-embedding prediction, autoencoding, vision-language pre-training, and astro-specific architectures from $\mathcal{O}$(10M)${\to}\mathcal{O}$(10B) parameters) on crossmatched JWST, HSC, and Legacy imagery, and DESI spectroscopy. All models are evaluated frozen, with no astronomy-specific fine-tuning. We probe redshift, stellar mass, and sSFR via linear probes, and local (MKNN) and global (CKA) embedding geometry within families, between modalities, and across architectures. We find that physics performance scales predictably with capacity; probe directions align consistently with expected astrophysical correlations and selection effects; and local (not global) embedding alignment tracks physics performance, including between DESI spectra and HSC imagery---modalities that share essentially no low-level statistics. Our results support the ARH over the strict PRH, demonstrate astronomy's value as an experimental framework for neural representation learning, and suggest that astro-foundation models can build on general-purpose pre-trained architectures, capitalizing on the broader open machine learning community's already-spent computational investment.

astro-ph.IM↗

arXiv2026

The Variance Brain Foundation Models Forgot: Third-Order Statistics Predict Cognition Where Billion-Parameter Models Fail

Brain foundation models (BFMs) are self-supervised Transformers pretrained on fMRI data. We posit that these models should capture each subject's cognitive performance from their fMRI signal. Yet across three state-of-the-art BFMs and every readout we test, they predict cognition worse than a linear regression from the $\sim$80K parameters of the functional connectivity matrix (FC). The gap widens with scale: BrainLM's 650M model predicts cognition worse than its 111M. We attribute this to a \textbf{variance allocation problem}: BFM pretraining captures the variance components that dominate fMRI but not the higher-order structure that predicts cognition. Our per-cumulant analysis of the reconstructed signal shows that the second-order covariance is partially preserved, while the third-order co-skewness tensor is largely destroyed. To recover what BFMs lose, we design a linear pipeline that projects the fMRI signal into the subspace that best preserves its co-skewness and computes FC there. This \textbf{exceeds raw FC and every pretrained BFM} on every dataset and parcellation we test, outperforming prior state-of-the-art under controlled evaluation \textbf{with no pretraining and no GPU}. We \textbf{recover the raw-FC ceiling on BrainLM's forward pass} by finetuning with a loss targeted at this same subspace. This shows that the bottleneck is the pretraining objective, not the architecture or the model size.

q-bio.NC↗