abstract: Many complex problems are naturally understood in terms of symbolic concepts. For example, our concept of *"cat"* is related to our concepts of *"ears"* and *"whiskers"* in a non-arbitrary way. Fodor (1998) proposes one theory of concepts, which emphasizes symbolic representations related via constituency structures. Whether neural networks are consistent with such a theory is open for debate. We propose unit tests for evaluating whether a system's behavior is consistent with several key aspects of Fodor's criteria. Using a simple visual concept learning task, we evaluate several modern neural architectures against this specification. We find that models succeed on tests of groundedness, modularlity, and reusability of concepts, but that important questions about causality remain open. Resolving these will require new methods for analyzing models' internal states.[^1]
author: Charles Lovering
Department of Computer Science
Brown University
`firstname.lastname@example.com`
Ellie Pavlick
Department of Computer Science
Brown University
`email@example.com`
bibliography: concepts.bib
title: Unit Testing for Concepts in Neural Networks

# Introduction

Understanding language requires having representations of the world to which language refers. Prevailing theories in linguistics and cognitive science hold that these representations, or *concepts*, are structured in a compositional way–e.g., the concept of *"car"* can be combined with other concepts (*"gray"*, *"new"*)–and that the meanings of composite concepts (*"gray car"*) are inherited predictably from the meanings of the parts. State-of-the-art models for natural language processing (NLP) use neural networks (NNs), in which internal representations are points in high-dimensional space. Whether such representations can in principle reflect the abstract symbolic structure presupposed by theories of human language and cognition is an open debate. This paper maintains that the question of whether a model contains the desired type of symbolic conceptual representations is best answered at the *computation level* : that is, the diagnostics of "symbolic concepts" concern what a system does and why, rather than the details of how that behavior is achieved (e.g., whether it stores vectors vs. explicit symbols "on disk"). Even , in their vocal criticism of NNs, assert that "a connectionist neural network can perfectly well *implement* a classical architecture at the cognitive level"[^2], but do not say how to know if such an implementation has been realized.

To this end, we propose an API-level specification based on criteria of "what concepts have to be" . Our specification (§) defines the required behaviors and operations, but is agnostic about implementation. We then consider fully-connectionist systems equipped with modern evaluation methods (e.g., counterfactual perturbations, probing classifiers) as candidate systems. We present evidence that the evaluated models learn conceptual representations that meet a number of the key criteria (–) but fail on those related to causality (–). We argue that more powerful tools for analyzing NNs' internal states may be sufficient to close this gap (). Overall, our primary contribution is a framework for seeking converging evidence from multiple evaluation techniques in order to determine whether modern neural models are consistent with a specific theory of concepts. Our experiments offer an updated perspective in the debate about whether neural networks can serve as the substrate of a linguistically competent system.

# "What Concepts Have To Be"

## Criteria

There is no single agreed-upon standard for what "concepts" are . We base our criteria on those put forth in as part of a theory which advocates symbolic representations and prioritizes explaining phenomena such as syntactic productivity and semantic compositionality. argues for five conditions required for a conceptual representation to be viable as a model of human-level cognition: **C1:** "Concepts are mental[^3] particulars; specifically, they...function as mental causes and effects"; **C2:** "Concepts...apply to things in the world; things in the world "fall under them"; **C3:** "Concepts are constituents of thoughts and...of one another. Mental representations inherit their contents from the contents of their constituents"; **C4:** "Quite a lot of concepts \[are\] learned"; **C5:** "Concepts are public...to say that two people share a concept \[means\] they have tokens of literally the same concept type."

## Assumptions and Limitations

We focus on 's criteria since they are concordant with ideas from formal linguistics which have recently been highlighted as weaknesses of NNs . We don't claim that Fodor's theories should necessarily serve as the standard for NLP systems (indeed, his theories face criticisms). The subset of Fodor's criteria on which we focus (§) are fairly uncontroversial, and arguably would transfer to alternative theories of conceptual structure–for example, Bayesian causal models . We view our tests as necessary but alone insufficient to meet Fodor's criteria. For example, our composite concepts depend on simple conjunction and thus do not address issues about constituency structure in which the argument order matters. Even so, our results offer a valuable starting point on which subsequent theoretical and empirical work can build.

# System Specification

We translate key ideas from Fodor's conditions into concrete unit tests for evaluating computational models. Our mapping is not one-to-one: We combine C2 and C5 into a single test focused on whether a concept grounds consistently to perception; we split C3 into two tests and leave aspects to future work; we omit C4 since there is likely little controversy that modern NLP systems "learn" concepts. Our tests apply to a system holistically, including implementations of diagnostic functions, not just the internal representations. Thus, it is possible for one system to fail our tests, but for a different system with the same internal representation but different implementations of the functions to succeed. See discussions in and .

## Data Types and Basic Functions

Our domain consists of things in the perceptual world (`type X`) to which humans assign discrete words (`type Y`). We follow in treating word meaning and concepts as interchangeable.[^4] Internal concepts may be either *atomic* (without an internal structure) or *composite*, which, in our setting, means they obey a simple conjunctive syntax over atomic constituents (e.g., *"ice"*$\models$*"water"*&*"solid"*). We assume two ground-truth functions: `gt_label` which returns the name for a given thing and `gt_describe` which describes a composite concept (type `Y`) in terms of its constituents (type `Set[Y]`).

We require that the system supports an `encode` operation to map `X` to an internal representation of type `Z`, as well as a `predict` operation to map `Z` to `Y`. We also require that the system implements two diagnostic functions, i.e., functions unnecessary for the system's usual operations (here, assigning words to inputs), but necessary for measuring properties of the system's internal structure. `has_concept` returns true if the system considers the internal representation (`Z`) to encode a concept (`Y`); `ablate` removes the part of the internal representation considered to encode the concept.

## Unit Tests

Our specification requires not only that a system supports the above operations, but that its implementation obeys certain constraints, which we formalize via unit tests. Intuitively, it is helpful to think of these unit tests by picturing a symbolic system (e.g., a graphical model) which would pass the tests by construction (Figure ). In practice, we run our tests on NNs, not graphical models. However, if the models pass our tests, the implication is that the NN has implemented something that, for our purposes, is functionally equivalent to the symbolic model shown in Figure .

### `is_grounded`

Our test `is_grounded` (analyzed in ) is derived from the requirements that internal concepts are tied to the external world (C2) in a way that is shared (C5)[^5] . Our test requires that models respond to changes in perceptual inputs in the same way that an (idealized) human would respond to those changes, i.e., that `predict(encode(x)) == gt_label(x)`. Effectively, this test simply requires a model performs well on the labeling task, but does not care about the representations involved in producing those labels.

### `is_token_of_type`

C3 requires that concepts have constituency structure. We define two tests which probe aspects of this requirement (see § for caveats).

First, `is_token_of_type` (evaluated in ) tests whether different token instances of a concept evaluate to the same semantic type. claim this property is required for systematicity and compositionality, arguing that the inference *"Turtles are slower than rabbits$_1$"; "Rabbits$_2$ are slower than Ferraris"*$\to$*"Turtles are slower than Ferraris"* only follows if, among other things, *"rabbits$_1$"* is treated as the same as (not merely "similar to") *"rabbits$_2$"*. We thus require that there exists a computational procedure for mapping models' internal representations into a discrete space, and that this procedure applies in the same way to all token instances of a concept. Concretely, $\forall \texttt{c} \in \texttt{gt\_describe(gt\_label(x))}$ we require that $\texttt{has\_concept(encode(x), c)}$.

### `is_modular`

Second, `is_modular` (evaluated in ) is based on requirements for productivity; e.g., for an NP (e.g., *"John"*) to fit into arbitrarily many contexts (*"John loves Mary"*, *"Joe loves John"*), the representation of the NP must be fully disentanglable from the other words and syntax. We frame this requirement as a test of whether representations support "slot filling". That is, given a representation of a composite concept, removal of one constituent concept should produce an unfilled "slot" but otherwise leave the remaining constituent concepts intact, i.e., *" loves Mary"*. Concretely, given `z = ablate(encode(x), y)`, we require that `has_concept(z, y)` is false, and that $\forall \texttt{c} \in \texttt{gt\_describe(gt\_label(x))}$ s.t. `c `$\neq$` y`, `has_concept(z, c)` is true.

### `is_causal`

Finally, `is_causal` (evaluated in ) checks that C1 is met by testing that internal conceptual representations themselves serve as "mental causes and effects". As in , "state transitions in Classical machines are causally determined by *the structure–including the constituent structure–of the symbol arrays that the machines transform*: change the symbols and the system behaves quite differently". To operationalize this, we consider the case in which a model's behavior (e.g., its use of a label) is assumed to be in response to having tokened a composite concept 'A&B'. We require that changes in the representation, such that the constituent concept 'A' is no longer tokened (or, that the constituent concept which is tokened is no longer labeled as type 'A'), result in corresponding changes in the model's behavior. In practice, this amounts to requiring that ablating a constituent concept results in expected degradation in model performance. That is, `predict(ablate(encode(x), c))` should perform at chance if `c` is a constituent of `gt_label(x)`, and should perform equivalently to `predict(encode(x))` otherwise.

# Implementation

Our code, data, and results are available at:
bit.ly/unit-concepts-drive.

## Functions

We implement **`encode`** with five different models: three pretrained and two from-scratch[^6]. For pretrained models, we use a residual network trained over ImageNet (RN$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{IMG}}}$) and two architectures from CLIP –a vision transformer (ViT$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{CLIP}}}$) and a residual network (RN$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{CLIP}}}$). For from-scratch models, we use a randomly initialized residual network model (RN$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{NoPre}}}$) and a CNN model[^7] (CNN$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{NoPre}}}$). We use the pretrained encoders with no additional training. For the other models, we finetune on a classification task on our data.

To implement **`predict`**, we train linear "probing classifiers" over the outputs of `encode` using the Adam optimizer . **`has_concept`** is also implemented with linear classifiers. Thus, our system considers the output of `encode` to "have" a concept if a probing model can learn to discriminate instances according to the concept.

To implement **`ablate`**, we use Iterative Nullspace Linear Projection (INLP) , which repeatedly collapses directions that linearly separate the instances of one concept from those of another. INLP has been used to remove concepts like parts of speech from word representations .

### Limitations

We make a few important simplifying assumptions in our implementations, which are necessary in order to employ the available analysis tools at the time of writing. First, since INLP–our implementation for `ablate`–only removes linear information, we restrict our implementations of `predict` and `has_concept` to be linear models. However, since writing, new methods have been introduced which could in principle be used in place of INLP in our experiments, and would likely yield different results. We discuss possible implications in .

Second, in most experiments, we treat the `encode` function as a block, only analyzing its outputs, rather than ablating concepts in its internal layers. However, looking at individual layers could tell a different story. We provide initial results in , but a complete investigation warrants significant experiments and is left for future work.

Finally, INLP is iterative, each step removing a direction from the input representation. Our experiments report the results after the first iteration of INLP, as it removes the most salient direction of the concept. Again, future work may find insights in analyzing the removal of subsequent directions.

## Dataset

### Description

Our **default dataset** is a synthetic image[^8] dataset with 1000 training examples of each of 18 classes, where each class is composed of three from a set of eight **atomic concepts** {3 layouts: horizontal, vertical, ring} x {3 shapes: rectangle, oval, polygon} x {2 strokes: clean, fuzzy}. Thus, each class is a **composite concept** made up of three constituent atomic concepts. See for examples.[^9]

We also create a **colors dataset** in which the color of the shapes is correlated with the class label. We do this because, in `is_grounded` (), we find very strong results in the default setting and want to better understand the conditions under which those results hold. The colors dataset emulates a situation where there are spurious features, making it more difficult for a model to ground to the correct perceptual inputs. This dataset is not directly tied to any of Fodor's criteria, but allows us get a more nuanced understanding of our `is_grounded` results. Here, each of the 18 classes is correlated with a different color, such that for $p \in \{\textrm{RAND}, 90, 99, 100\}$, a given instance has probability $p$ of expressing that paired color, with remaining $1 - p$ probability distributed uniformly over the other colors. $\textrm{RAND} = 5.6\%$, i.e. $1/18$.

### Seen and Unseen Examples

To test the generality of a model's representations, we train the diagnostic functions `has_concept` and `ablate` on a subset of the full 18 classes. We define **slice** to mean a set of composite concepts that share the same atomic concepts except along a given dimension. For instance, *"dax"*, *"surp"*, *"slup"* form a slice that delineates layout–i.e., the classes differ in layout but otherwise are the same in terms of shape and stroke. All classes that the diagnostic functions are trained on are considered **seen** and the other classes are considered **unseen**. We experiment with two training settings, which, like the colors dataset, are not directly tied to Fodor's criteria, but which allow us to tell a more nuanced story about what it takes for models to pass our tests. In the first setting (**1 slice**), the probes used to implement `has_concept` are trained on a dataset with one class per concept. So, in this setting, instances that fall under the concept *"horizontal"* would all be drawn from *"dax"*. In the second setting (**N-1 slices**), probes are trained on many classes per concept. Here, instances of *"horizontal"* would be drawn from several classes (*"blick"*, *"glorp"*, etc). In –, we focus on the results over unseen classes; performance over seen classes is generally high across all evaluations.

### Human Performance

We run a Mechanical Turk study with 150 individuals. Subjects are given three exemplars of each class (equivalent to Figure ), and are then asked to assign a novel instance to one of the 18 classes. Across 1500 predictions, the majority label agrees with our ground truth label 63% of the time (over a 5.6% random baseline). We find that mistakes are systematic and predictable: e.g., subjects routinely confusing *"gix"* and *"gip"* as the *"clean"* versus *"fuzzy"* edge is difficult to discern in this setting.

Thus, some of our class distinctions rely on perceptual features that are difficult for humans to distinguish, but which models are able to differentiate well. This is an important discussion point, but does not undermine the validity of the present study. In general, conceptual representation is considered to be divorceable from perception: the fact that one might mistake a cat for a skunk does not mean they do not have the concept of `cat`. By similar logic, the fact that our models have super-human perception in this domain need not prevent us from analyzing the structure of the concepts that they represent, or comparing them to a ground truth that imagines humans to have perfect perception.

# Test 1: Predictions are Grounded

`Is_grounded` requires that if, definitionally, the difference between *"dax"* and *"blick"* is roundness, then this visual attribute should dictate predictions.

## Experimental Design

We use counterfactual minimal pairs, which have been used in both NLP and computer vision . Our dataset () is generated using a set of background parameters (i.e., locations and sizes of the underlying shapes) in addition to the atomic concepts (shape, stroke, and layout). To generate minimal pairs, we sample 1000 sets of these background parameters, and then render each sampled set of parameters for every combination of shape$\times$stroke$\times$layout. This ensures the instances in a pair are equivalent in all visual features (e.g., total surface area covered by shapes, relative distance between shapes, etc) except those features which change as a direct consequence of manipulating the target atomic concept. We generate minimal pairs in the colors dataset () in the same way, treating color as another background parameter. After setting up the minimal pairs, we measure the probability that `predict(encode(`$\cdot$`))` == `gt_label(`$\cdot$`)`.

If the model grounds concepts to the desired perceptual features, then it should perform perfectly at classifying the images across all settings. If the model performs poorly, we interpret this as evidence that the model grounds the concept to some features in a way that would not be "shared" with (idealized) humans, e.g., the model considers *"dax"* to ground to color or size of shapes, rather than solely to *"circle"*&*"horizontal"*&*"smooth"*.

## Results

The models perform well on the default dataset ($\sim98\%$). When the classes are highly correlated with a spurious color feature, performance degrades (Figure ). However, notably, even when models are trained on highly imbalanced data (e.g., with 99% of *"dax"*s being red), the pre-trained models still perform well above random out-of-distribution (75% over a 5.6% random baseline).

## Discussion

We interpret this as a positive result: The results on the default dataset demonstrate that the pretrained models' behavior is explained by the expected perceptual features, satisfying `is_grounded`. The degradation in performance when using the colors dataset raises two issues worthy of discussion. First, across our unit tests, this result is the one of only places in which we see a real difference between pretrained and from-scratch models. These results suggest that the pretrained models (which have been trained with access to linguisitic information, i.e., category labels for ImageNet and captions for CLIP) encode an inductive bias for shape over color. That is, even in the setting in which color is perfectly correlated with the class label, the models still generalize based on shape rather than color around half of the time. Such findings echo previously published arguments that pretraining can encode inductive biases that help models learn language more efficiently .

Second, while poor out-of-distribution generalization is not desireable, it is important to emphasize that it is *not* inconsistent with the use of symbolic concepts. For example, a model which explicitly represents symbols (e.g., Naive Bayes) could exhibit a similar drop in performance as the prior given the correlation in the training data makes the correct class less likely. As written, Fodor's criteria do not adjudicate on this issue. Thus, with respect to grounding, fully characterizing neural networks in terms of their symbolic representations (or lack thereof) requires refined criteria which can discriminate between models which represent grounded symbols (but make errors in learning) from models that do not represent grounded symbols at all.

# Test 2: Representations Encode Types

`Is_token_of_type` requires that the system's representations of concepts can be mapped to discrete types in a reusable way.

## Experimental Design

We train `has_concept` on a subset of the slices from the dataset (see ). For example, we can train `has_concept` to predict the layout (*"vertical"*, *"horizontal"*, or *"ring"*) by training it on examples of *"dax"*, *"surp"* and *"slup"*, which differ only in the layout constituent, but are identical in the other constituents, (*"oval"*, *"smooth"*). We then evaluate on unseen classes, such as *"blick"*, *"gix"* and *"wug"*, which exemplify the same variation in layout, but do so in the context of other constituents not seen in training (e.g., *"rectangle"*).

We take good generalization as evidence that the model's representations of a concept can be viewed as tokens of the same concept type. For example, whenever the model receives an input that falls under the concept *"vertical"*, the concept of *"vertical"* is tokened in the model's internal representations in a way which can be reliably localized by a single, fixed *"vertical"*-type detector. Generalization to unseen classes indicates that the tokening of *"vertical"* is not dependent on the other concepts that might be tokened simultaneously (e.g., *"oval"* or *"rectangle"*). Poor generalization suggests that models' internal representations are context dependent: *"vertical"* in the context of *"oval"* is not of the same type as *"vertical"* in the context of *"rectangle"*.

## Results

The results are overall positive. All models show near-perfect accuracies on seen classes ($>99\%$, not shown). Over the unseen classes (), the models perform better in the easier N-1 slices setting (when generalizing from 15 seen classes to 3 unseen classes). For 1 slice, the accuracies are lower but still well above chance–around to 75%.

## Discussion

Overall, representations of atomic concepts appear to be "the same" across contexts, generalizing well to unseen compositions. The performance differential between 1 slice and N - 1 slice suggests (intuitively) that more varied data enables the `has_concept` probe to better identify the stable, defining features of the concept: i.e., seeing *"vertical"* in the context of both *"oval"* and *"rectangle"* makes it easier to recognize *"vertical"* in the context of previously-unseen *"polygon"*. As was the case with the out-of-distribution generalization results discussed in , these results about the amount and variety of training data required are interesting, but do not speak directly to the question of symbolic representations. Rather, our results on 1 slice vs. N - 1 slices correspond to a question about acquisition, and is an issue on which Fodor's criteria are silent. Other theories of concepts focus on acquisition and make empirical predictions about the amount and distribution of data from which certain concepts should be acquirable. Future work could expand our unit tests to reflect such empirical predictions, in addition to the in-principle criteria proposed by Fodor.

# Test 3: Representations are Modular

`Is_modular` tests that removing one constituent concept from the representation of a composite concept does not harm the other constituents.[^10]

## Experimental Design

We use `ablate` to remove a given constituent and then assert that `has_concept` is unable to detect the removed concept, but still able to detect the remaining constituents. For example, *"dax"* $\models$ *"oval"&"horizontal"&"smooth"* is a composite concept. We require that ablating *"horizontal"* from a tokened representation of *"dax"* results in a representation of the form *"oval"*&&*"smooth"*, which leaves the layout "slot" empty, but otherwise preserves the information about the structure and type of the composition. In our implementation, without loss of generality, we ablate sets of atomic concepts (e.g., ablating all three layout concepts together) rather than a single concept at a time.

High accuracy on the ablated concept means the system failed to implement `ablate` correctly. Low accuracy on the concepts that were not ablated (e.g., if removing layout means `has_concept` no longer can distinguish *"rectangle"* from *"oval"*) means that constituent representations are entangled in a way likely incompatible with e.g., productivity. Thus, for each atomic concept dimension (layout, shape, stroke) we run three tests–one to check that performance at detecting the ablated concepts is low and two to check that performance at detecting the other two dimensions is high. We consider "high" to be \>75% accuracy[^11]; random is 33% for layout and shape, and 50% for stroke.

## Results

All the models are largely successful (). Overall, performance is low on the removed concept but high on the remaining concepts, as desired. Performance is higher variance in the harder 1 slice setting. For example, when layout is ablated in ViT$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{CLIP}}}$, the accuracy for detecting layout is far below random in the N - 1 slice setting, but marginally above random in the 1 slice setting.

## Discussion

Across models and training configurations, the trends are in the expected direction: performance on the ablated concept is low (near random) and performance on other concepts is high. In the harder 1-slice setting, performance on the not-ablated concepts sometimes degrades, meaning, for example, its not possible to remove the constituent *"vertical"* from *"dax"* without also damaging the representation of *"oval"* to some extent. In terms of Fodor's criteria for constituency, this suggests a problem, as the lack of modularity would make it difficult to explain phenomena such as infinite productivity–i.e., if *"oval"* cannot be fully divorced from *"vertical"*, it becomes difficult to explain how the same *"oval"* is able to combine with arbitrarily many different layouts (*"horizontal"*, *"ring"*, etc). However, the evidence is hardly damning–the patterns are largely consistent with expectations. As in , this represents a direction in need of future work and discussion. These results could become unambiguously positive if we concede that models might require sufficient training in order to learn modular concept representations. Fodor's theory does not offer criteria for what is "sufficient", but subsequent experiments could draw on other theories from developmental psychology to determine such criteria, and then refine the unit tests accordingly.

# Test 4: Representations are *Not* Causal

`Is_causal` tests that the internal representations serve as "mental causes and effects". Where `is_token_of_type` and `is_modular` demonstrated that models' representations can be labeled and manipulated according to discrete types, we now test that those types are causally implicated in model behavior–e.g., if the constituent concept *"oval"* is no longer tokened, will this prevent the model from producing the label *"dax"*? Similar to `is_grounded`, this test relies on counterfactual perturbations, but differs in that the perturbations are applied to the model's internal representations, rather than to the perceptual input.

## Experimental Design

We evaluate `predict` after removing a concept with `ablate`. We expect this to impair the model's ability to reason about the ablated concept, but not others. For example, if we remove the layout dimension, the model should be able to distinguish between *"blick"* and *"dax"* (as they differ in shape), but unable to distinguish between *"blick"* and *"slup"* (as they differ in layout). We thus distinguish two measures of accuracy: the rate at which the model's predicted concept matches the true concept along the removed dimension (which should be at random), and the rate at which the model's predicted concept matches the true concept along the other dimensions (which should be high). We take \>75% accuracy to be high; random is 33% for layout and shape, and 50% for stroke.

## Results

All of our models fail this test (). Accuracies with respect to the ablated features stay far above random. The pattern holds whether we train on 1 or N-1 slices, and whether we evaluate on seen (not shown) or unseen classes. Increasing the iterations of INLP () (not shown) causes performance to deteriorate for all concepts (even those which we are not trying to ablate), a different pattern which nonetheless constitutes a failure on our unit test.

## Discussion

These models in general pass `is_modular`, meaning that there exists a localizable representation of each atomic concept. Thus, this subsequent failure suggests that `predict` ends up using different representations than those which are used by `has_concept`. That is, while there exists a part of the internal representation that encodes the atomic concepts, `predict` relies on a different part of the internal representation to make decisions about composite concepts.

One possible explanation for this result is that the model tokens *both* the atomic concepts and the composite ones simultaneously, with each concept (composite or not) represented as its own symbol, and `predict` uses only the composite ones directly. For example, observing an instance of *"dax"* causes the model to token the atomic *"oval"* and *"horizontal"* but also a composite concept *"oval"*&*"horizontal"* which is a symbol in and of itself. Whether or not such behavior is consistent with Fodor's criteria depends on the causal relationship between these tokenings–i.e., does tokening *"oval"*&*"horizontal"* entail tokening *"oval"*? Future work could answer this question by looking more closely at the way representations evolve during training or across layers during processing. We present initial investigations on the latter in .

Finally, as discussed in , our specification applies not just to the representations, but to the system as a whole. Thus, the implementation of `ablate` (INLP in our case), is part of the evaluated system. When a model fails this test, we cannot say whether there was a critical flaw with the representation or rather that the concept ablation itself failed–e.g., because of assumptions of linearity, of treating `encode` as a block, etc. It is possible that, if new techniques are used to instantiate `ablate`, the same representations might fare better (or worse) according to our tests. For example, since writing, new techniques for applying non-linear perturbations have been proposed. Such methods could potentially be incorporated into our framework to yield new insights on this particular test.

# Analysis: Concepts Across Layers

## Hypothesis

Here, we conduct a preliminary investigation into one hypothesis about the reason for our models' failure on `is_causal`. Specifically, we hypothesize that the causal structure exists, but it unfolds across layers. The constituent concepts (e.g., *"oval"* and *"horizontal"*) are tokened in early layers, and are subsequently composed such that the composite concept (*"dax"* = *"oval"*&*"horizontal"*) is tokened at the final layer as its own symbol and is the direct effect of the model's predicted label. Below, we investigate two predictions of this hypothesis, and observe mixed results.

## Aggregate Analysis

If our hypothesis is true, we would expect to see 1) that concepts should emerge in the expected order across layers, i.e., constituent concepts before composite concepts and 2) errors in labeling the composite concept at a given layer should be explained by errors in identifying the constituents at that layer. That is, if the model cannot recognize *"oval"* vs. *"rectangle"* until layer 4, it should not be able to differentiate *"dax"* from *"blick"* (which depend on the shape distinction) before that layer. Moreover, if the model's failure to recognize *"oval"* vs. *"rectangle"* is the reason for the mislabel, the observed error in labeling the composite concepts should be equal to the product of the errors the constituents. That is, considering *"dax"*s, if errors in the constituents cause errors in the composite, the model should mislabel *"dax"* as *"blick"* exactly as often as `has_concept` mistakenly returns *"rectangle"* instead of *"oval"*.

shows predictions from probing models for each concept at each layer. It also shows the *composed probe* accuracy, computed by combining the predictions of each of the probing classifiers, as well as the *direct classification* accuracy, computed by measuring the performance of a new classifier trained to predict the final class *at each layer*.[^12] The trend is promising: composite concepts are recognized only after constituents are recognized, and, for most models, the direct classification accuracy is close to what we expect based on composed probes (though often slightly higher, especially on the from-scratch models).[^13]

## Instance-Level Analysis

If our hypothesis holds, not only should the error rates be similar, but the direct class prediction should be predicted by the composed probes. That is, if at a given layer, the model is given an image of a *"dax"* and mistakenly detects *"rectangle"* (according to the probe) instead of *"oval"*, then the model should label the input as *"blick"*.

To quantify whether the instance-level predictions behave this way, we compute the normalized pointwise mutual information (NMI, which ranges from $0$ to $1$) between the direct prediction and the composition of the probe predictions. If the direct prediction is indeed a function of the constituent probes, we would expect to see high NMI (near $1.0$) across the board–i.e., even when the model's accuracy is low, the NMI would be high if it was erring in the expected way. However, shows there is relatively little mutual information until the final layer of the network (ViT$_{\textrm{\footnotesize{CLIP}}}$ might be an exception). In other words, while the probing and downstream models have similar error rate in aggregate, they make *different mistakes* on individual instances.

This result is inconclusive: while high NMI would have been suggestive of a causal connection between the probes and the classifier, low NMI doesn't necessarily mean such a link does not exist. E.g., if a model is altogether failing to differentiate *"rectangle"*s and *"oval"*s, and thus failing to differentiate *"dax"*s and *"blicks"*s, then both the probe and the classifier might resort to pure guessing between these labels, and thus appear to disagree even though they in fact depend on the same (underdetermined) conceptual representation.

# Summary

Overall, our experiments suggest that models exhibit grounded behavior and possess conceptual representations that encode modular, context-independent types. However, we don't find evidence of a direct causal connection between the representations of constituent concepts and those of composite concepts, an essential feature of Fodor's theory on which our specification is based. Our discussions of each idividual experiment (, , , ) together raise several general themes.

First, success on our tests often depends on granting assumptions about how concepts are acquired; viz., how should concepts be learned in the face of spurious correlations, how many training examples are necessary, etc.? While Fodor does not focus on acquisition in his criteria, other theories exist which make empirical predictions about how and when specific conceptual representations develop in humans . Future work could translate such predictions into additional unit tests (e.g., measuring learning curves, processing times, etc), in order to diagnose whether current models' errors should be interpreted as failures vs. expected signatures of conceptual learning.

Second, our proposed tests evaluate a system as a whole. Thus, our ability to make claims about neural networks as an implementation of conceptual reasoning is dependent on the quality of the tools available for inspecting neural networks' internals. A particularly fruitful area for future work is finding alternative implementations of `ablate`. Recent work by and could be promising places to start.

Finally, we observe interesting trends about the effect of pretraining on conceptual representations. The models we evaluate share the same architecture but have different pretraining regimes. Only for `is_grounded`, and possibly in our layerwise analysis, was there a clear benefit from pretraining. Our results suggested that the pretrained models had an inductive bias for shape over color, and may show more promise in subsequent studies of causality. On other tests, pretraining did not translate to a clear improvement in conceptual structure.

# Related Work

Our study follows work on distributional models of semantics, which seeks to interpret computational models based on vectors and neural networks in terms of linguistic and cognitive theories . However, we do not take a stand on how vector spaces compare to symbols as models of human language/cognition *at the computational level*. Rather, our study assumes that one prefers a symbolic model at the computational level, and asks whether neural networks could serve as the implementation of such a model.

Closely related is recent work which seeks to answer whether neural networks exhibit properties such as systematicity and compositionality both in NLP and in computer vision . In contrast to these studies, which assess the final model behavior (analogous to `predict`), we have additional criteria for how the representations behave (like `is_modular`). Also related is prior work which attempts to define mappings between humans' and neural networks' conceptual spaces, e.g., by defining measures of compositionality or groundedness based on how well similarity in vector space reflects similarity according to a symbolic representation . Our work differs in that we use a multifaceted suite of evaluation techniques in order to operationalize a specific theory of concepts.

We use techniques from the broad area of interpretability and analysis of neutral networks. First, work on **identifying concepts in neural networks** seeks interpretable patterns in the activations and gradients of neural networks, e.g., that unsupervised CNNs encode concepts such as edges . Many techniques have been proposed in order to determine which input features are "important" to model decisions . We employ the method of "diagnostic classifiers" , with the goal of finding high-level concepts which are not directly reducible to input features . Second, work on **counterfactual perturbations** attempts to provide causal explanations of model predictions in terms of input features or concepts. Most such work relies on controlled perturbations of the model's input–e.g., manipulating pixels in an image or tokens in a string of text , though recent methods operate on models' internal representations . We employ both types of counterfactual manipulations (we manipulate inputs in and representations in ). Unlike prior work, which often treats these counterfactual manipulations as different measures of the same thing, we connect each evaluation to a different aspect of Fodor's theory of concepts. Finally, our work uses the idea of **unit testing for neural networks** .

# Conclusion

We introduce a specification for symbolic conceptual reasoning based on Fodor's theory of concepts. We find evidence that current neural network models are consistent with many predictions of this theory but don't demonstrate a causal connection between the representations of constituent concepts and those of composite concepts. Further investigation into methods for manipulating models' internal representations may illuminate whether this inconsistency is fundamental to neural networks, or rather a limitation of current analysis tools.

# Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Roman Feiman, Carsten Eickhoff, Gabor Brody, and Jack Merullo for the helpful discussions. Furthermore, we want to thank our reviewers for their thorough feedback, helping us better present our work. This research was conducted using computational resources and services at the Center for Computation and Visualization, Brown University.

[^1]: This is a TACL paper in press undergoing the MIT license process, currently released with CC-BY.

[^2]: Italics added. Here, classical architecture = symbolic architecture, and cognitive level = computational level.

[^3]: "Mental" here implies that the representations are divorceable from the external world. One can token a concept in the absence of relevant perceptual stimuli. E.g., thinking "If it were raining..." entails thinking about "raining" precisely when it is *not* raining. This distinction is subtle but important. Our unit tests operationalize this via the fact, in 3 out of 4 tests, the perceptual input is held fixed and the intervention is applied to internal state. This is only a first step. Future work will need to explore this issue in more detail to determine what type of perceptual-conceptual distinction suffices to meet this criterion, and how it can be demonstrated empirically.

[^4]: This is a common assumption. Of course, in reality, there are things for which humans may have a concept but do not have the ability to express precisely in language.

[^5]: `is_grounded` tests whether changes in the input lead to changes in the model's behavior. This is different from Fodor's criteria, which require that the *concept*–i.e., the internal representation–is grounded, and that the representation (not necessarily the behavior) changes in response to external features. We can make this shift because (1) our models' behavior is by definition a function of its internal representation and (2) our test, `is_causal`, requires that changes in behavior are explained by changes in the internal representation. Thus success on both `is_causal` and `is_grounded` entails Fodor's criteria that those things which serve as mental causes and effects are grounded. However, it is plausible that other models could pass using a "loophole" in which the behavior is grounded but the internal concepts are not, or could fail due to a technicality in which the representation changes but the model "decides" not to change it behavior (though the latter assumes a highly competent system, see ).

[^6]: We do claim pretraining is analogous to human learning. Success on our tests is interesting because it provides an existence proof of *one particular* recipe by which the desired representations arise. This is similar to work on syntax in LMs , which is valuable despite LM training being very different from how children learn.

[^7]: Four layers: filters=(64, 32, 16, 8), kernels=3, stride=2; batch norm and ReLU activations.

[^8]: Each image is saved as a PNG and resized to the highest resolution supported by the given model; ImgNet uses 256 x 256 pixels. There is exactly 1 duplicate image in the *colors* dataset for seed = 10.

[^9]: This paper asks whether NNs are consistent with (key aspects of) Fodor's theory of concepts, *not* whether NNs are equivalent to humans. Synthetic data allows us to study models in a setting where we can guarantee that the desired structure is "correct". That is, we give Fodor the benefit of the doubt and assume his theory of concepts is correct. Ultimately, we care about the latter question: are NN's human-like? However, in our view, we don't have the data and theories (just yet) to tackle this in a deep, meaningful way. While Fodor's theory is certainly *not* a perfect theory of human concepts, at least some aspects of his theory are likely to be present in whatever the "right" theory is, even if not exactly as Fodor envisioned it (e.g., most credible theories appeal to compositionality and causality). Future work can and should relax our generous assumptions, work on non-synthetic data, and analyze NNs through the lens of competing theories of concepts.

[^10]: Whether concepts should be entangled, i.e., "holism" , is an area of extensive debate. We make some strong assumptions following Fodor's ideals. See Footnote 8.

[^11]: This threshold is arbitrary, but allows us to talk in terms of explicit pass/fail criteria for our unit tests.

[^12]: Because CNNs and ViTs have multiple dimensions, to get a vector representation for a given layer, we mean across the channels and then flatten into a vector. There are many other possible approaches we did not evaluate.

[^13]: n.b. In early layers, models make the same mistakes people do, e.g., confusing fuzzy ovals and polygons ().


abstract: At the turn of the decade we arguably move from the era of precision cosmology to the era of galaxy formation. One approach to this problem will be via the construction of comprehensive galaxy samples. In this review I take the opportunity to highlight a number of challenges which must be overcome before we can use such data to construct a robust empirical blueprint of galaxy evolution. The issues briefly highlighted here are: the Hubble tuning fork versus galaxy components, the hierarchy of structure, the accuracy of structural decompositions, galaxy photometry, incompleteness, cosmic variance, photometric versus spectroscopic redshifts, wavelength bias, dust attenuation, and the disconnect with theory. These concerns essentially form one of the key motivations of the GAMA survey which, as one of its goals, will establish a complete comprehensive kpc-resolution 3D multiwavelength (UV-Opt-IR-Radio) database of 250k galaxy systems to $z <0.5$.
author: Simon P. Driver
title: The decade of galaxy formation: pitfalls in the path ahead

address=School of Physics, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS

# Introduction

Following a decade of precision cosmology we move confidently into the decade in which we expect the process(es) of galaxy formation to become clear. The problem is well defined, how did baryonic matter assemble from the smooth distribution of neutral atoms at recombination to the $\sim 10^9$M$_{\odot}$ conglomerations of dust, gas, and stars that we see today. As we enter 2010 it is sobering to have to acknowledge that we do not yet have a cohesive model of galaxy formation but rather an extensive body of empirical results from diverse approaches and which are often in conflict (does the IMF vary or not?, why does the cosmic star-formation history overpredict the local stellar mass density?, is the merger rate high or low? how exactly do AGN fit in?), and that these fragmented bodies of evidence sit uncomfortably with the obvious bottom-up merger-rich inference one naturally draws from the hierarchical-CDM paradigm (why does the majority of stellar mass sit in thin fragile discs if merging is the principle formation mechanism? why do both galaxies and AGN follow downsizing trends if the majority of massive systems form late?).

At the outset of this journey it may be worth lightening our burden in two ways: firstly by acknowledging that probably a significant fraction of the current literature is in error (or at least dominated by poorly quantified systematics), and secondly that while hierarchical-CDM has been spectacularly successful at explaining the large-scale structure ($>1$Mpc), the exact processes by which the baryons evolve remains a matter of prescriptive speculation. Monolithic collapse, feedback, merging, and hot/cold gas infall sure, but how much of each, and how are they regulated? The modeling, while a vital industry and visually spectacular, should not overshadow or overly influence the empirically driven process of discovery, but rather augment it. Nor should we be over-burdened with statistical precision given the domination of the data by hidden systematics. So many of the papers I referee focus exquisitely on the statistical errors while paying scant regard to the systematics errors, some of which are laid out here.

Despite the plight of the world economies, we move into the new decade with a truly outstanding set of facilities coming online, for example: the refurbished HST, the HERSCHEL and WISE missions, the commissioning of VISTA and ALMA, and the opening up of 21cm studies beyond 12000km/s via ASKAP and MeerKAT, and in the longer term JWST, LSST, the SKA, and SNAP/DUNE/EUCLID (and too many more to mention). It is up to us not to fumble the opportunity this problem and these facilities provide, nor be overly fettered by the preconceptions we carry with us.

In this review I highlight ten practical issues which together convince me that low rather than high redshift is the place to start, that the time has come to truly embrace the multiwavelength approach, and that as much as we enjoy working in small teams the way forward is through large, open, and internationally cooperative collaborations.

# Challenges in the road ahead

## Global versus component measurements

What exactly constitutes a galaxy? Is it a single entity best defined by global parameters (size, colour, flux), or a more complex construction of distinct components (bulge, bar, disc)? Which components are transient and which might represent a fundamental imprint of its formation history?

The legacy of Hubble's initial classification scheme devised over 80 years ago lives on as galaxies are most often defined by their Hubble type (a global measure), but why? If the bulge and disc are co-eval entities whose properties are co-dependent then this makes sense but, putting aside the question of pseudo-bulges, it is difficult to find any property beyond total luminosity which discs and bulges share. The ages, metallicities, dynamics, dust, star-formation rates are all distinct evoking the notion of a least two fully distinct evolutionary processes and pathways. A classical bulge shares more commonality with a giant elliptical than the disc so surely it is logical to isolate the bulges and discs and look for commonalities and correlations within each structural group rather than with Hubble type. Perhaps this is best illustrated through galaxy bimodality (see Fig. 1), where the blue cloud and red sequence (global measurements) provide a less clear distinction than that provided by the bulges and discs (component measurements). As a community we know this deep down but the blue/red mantra along with the Hubble Tuning fork is proving hard to leave behind.

## The hierarchy of components

The spatial distribution reflects the combined orbits of billions of stars which are not trivially established or perturbed. This is distinct to spectroscopic information which contains a rich chemical imprint but only upto the last major episode of star-formation (typically a few Gyrs). While dynamics are robust to star-formation (except in the case of a rare major-merger), composite spectra are not and so the spatial distribution is more likely to contain an imprint of the full lifetime of the system and spectroscopy the current state-of-play. However despite the potential of structure to probe the full dynamical history the (detailed) study of galaxy structure is currently limited to the very local domain and mostly in atypical cluster environments (e.g., Virgo, Fornax, and Coma).

If one accepts that structure (and by this one means the stable and dynamically coupled configurations of billions of stars) is a byproduct of the formation history the next key question is whether all structure is important or whether their exists a hierarchy. For example one could attempt to separate galaxies into nucleus, bulge, pseudo-bulge, bar, inner disc, outer disc, outer truncation but this might be going too far. Fig. 2 shows two possible hierarchies (schemes) and readers will probably identify others. This is a key area where the theorists and simulators can inform the observers as to which structures are fundamental, which are transient, and which measurable quantity might best connect to key physical processes (mechanism, timescales and rates).

## Structural decomposition

One of the reasons structural decomposition has stalled at low redshift is the difficulty in unambiguously profiling galaxies as their resolution dwindles and in the presence of dust . From the ground credible bulge-disc decomposition is probably limited to $z<0.1$ where the spatial resolution approaches typically 1kpc per arcsecond. With HST one can actually resolve bound structures to $<1$kpc resolution across the full path-length of the Universe thanks to the diameter-distance relation but one is of course hit by the surface brightness dimming, the shift to more clumpy shorter rest-wavelengths, and perhaps more fundamentally the apparent evolution in structure from grand-design (order) at low redshift to train-wrecks (chaos) at high redshift. Exactly when ordered structure appears and how this depends on environment are key questions we should be able to address if we remain mindful of the selection biases at work. Fig. 3 shows two equally valid decompositions for a nearby galaxy, one with a bar and one without, but which is correct and how to robustly automate the decision making process. Some will argue, with good reason, that dynamical information will always be required to unambiguously identify bar and pseudo-bulge components.

## Photometry

Even the basic question of exactly how to measure the total flux of a galaxy is unclear. In common usage are circular Petrosian (SDSS; UKIDSS), elliptical Kron (MGC; SExtractor) and circularised elliptical isophotal (2MASS). However none of these will actually be meaningful if only the very central portion ($<1$R$_e$) of the galaxy was initially detected (e.g., if one detects just the bulge none of these methods will recover the disc). For example it is often stated that an SDSS Petrosian magnitude will recover 80% of the flux of an ($n=4$) elliptical galaxy. However this is only correct if the true intrinsic effective radius is sampled in the initial isophotal detection process (rarely the case for high-z or low luminosity local systems) . A promising way forward is profile or Sérsic fitting via sophisticated image-analysis packages such as GALFIT3, GIM2D and BUDDHA, however one still has to deal with what lies beneath the isophote in terms of truncation, and anti-truncation of the outer disc profile . As a consequence it is quite easy to underestimate both fluxes (and sizes) of low surface brightness (i.e., low luminosity and high-z objects) by a factor of 1mag or more. The question once posed by Mike Disney as to whether we are missing populations of giant galaxies (aka crouching giants) has perhaps morphed into a much more subtle question as to how much light are we missing from the galaxies we detect. The only credible solution appears to be deeper imaging yet this invariably reveals more structural complexity and extreme asymmetry (see discussion of faint outer structures in the review by Annette Ferguson in these proceedings). Fig. 4 highlights the flux bias by showing Sérsic photometry minus SDSS photometry as a logarithmic function of the Sérsic index. As we see for high Sérsic indices the photometric error becomes severe even at low redshift .

## Incomplete sampling

Incompleteness can be defined in many ways, typically we use it to refer to spectroscopic incompleteness whereby only some percentage of an input catalogue has confirmed redshifts (e.g., 88% 2dFGRS, 90% SDSS, 98% MGC). Surely the missing few per cent doesn't matter? Well...it depends what they are! If the missing systems are preferentially low luminosity then the problem becomes serious: a tiny population which is only observable within a tiny volume implies a massive population with a massive error . We also have incompleteness in our input catalogue which can have two causes, (1) a population of galaxies never detected, and/or, (2) a population whose flux was systematically underestimated and therefore underrepresented after any magnitude cut (i.e., missing galaxies and missing light). The first of these is unlikely to affect the giant galaxies where the majority of the total cosmic stellar mass lies , however the second is an insidious bias which potentially effects every galaxy . How severe is it? Until we work out how to measure galaxy photometry correctly this issue remains unclear . Ultimately these issues can only be minimised (and never entirely overcome) by deeper imaging and higher spectroscopic completeness both of which are not easily appreciated by time allocation committees. Fig. 5 illustrates the parameter space currently probed by the widest and deepest surveys implying our census even locally is woefully incomplete.

## Cosmic Variance

Cosmic (or sample) variance is present in all our surveys . In fact one of the conclusions, buried in one of the 2dFGRS papers, is that deriving the power-spectrum for larger samples is to some extent fruitless as it is perfectly plausible that our entire observable universe could be a very slightly anomalous region of the entire Universe. The exact scale at which the universe becomes homogeneous is actually ill defined with interesting anomalies arising in WMAP5. If the entire observable universe is potentially prone to Cosmic Variance then your local or pencil beam survey is most definitely prone to cosmic variance. Fig. 6 shows how cosmic variance depends on total survey volume derived by slicing and dicing the SDSS. Cosmic Variance only falls below 10% once a volume of $10^7$Mpc$^3$ has been sampled ($h=0.7$).

## Photo-z versus spectro-z

Fig. 7 shows cone plots from the GAMA survey using either $ugriz$ photometric redshifts (upper) or spectroscopic redshifts (lower). As we probe to fainter fluxes we sample more actively star-forming galaxies (flatter SEDs), the low luminosity population (intrinsically flatter SEDs), and our SED measurements become noisier, as well as more severely dust attenuated (see below). The photo-z method relies heavily on the existence of a strong 4000Å break which will diminish with limiting flux for the reasons indicated above. While photo-z's allow us to move forward the resulting luminosity distributions and various densities can only be taken as indicative at best.

## Wavelength Bias

Fig. 8 shows the classic galaxy NGC891 viewed from the FUV through the optical and into the near-IR. The star-formation lane broadens into the stellar population with a dust lane that gradually fades and then brightens as one sees only the glowing dust. The HI disc extends 5-10 times further than the stellar disc (see review by Lister Staveley-Smith and others in these proceedings), and often engulfs or shows HI bridges (streams) with otherwise apparently optically detached systems. As galaxy formation is encapsulated in the gas-star-dust cycle observations in the UV, optical, far-IR and radio are an absolute necessity if one is to untangle this interplay.

## Dust Attenuation

For most of the past two decades we've managed to sweep dust under the carpet. Having agreed to disagree in the 90s following the bloody-nose era of optically thick and thin sandwiches and slabs . We're now seeing a multitude of results from the MGC , and SDSS , , , , , , , , categorically demonstrating that the distribution of face-on systems bears little resemblance to edge-on systems with attenuation being measured in magnitudes rather than tenths of a magnitude. Unless we wish to dispense with the CP we are left to conclude that dust is playing havoc with our optical measurements and at this moment in time represents by far the largest systematic affecting all optical surveys. The problem gets worse towards higher redshift as one views more heavily attenuated wavelengths and the evolution of dust is unclear. Ultimately the D(ust)-correction may actually be more severe than the better known E- and K- corrections. To convey a scale of the problem our data demonstrate unequivicably that only 50% of the energy produced by stars actually makes it out of the host galaxy. While we can quantify the mean attenuation and its dependence on inclination the variance within the galaxy population and how this depends on environment and structural properties remains poorly quantified (although see . In effect, dust attenuation acts as a broad (many mag) smoothing filter over all our distributions, moving edge-on giants into the same luminosity bins as face-on dwarfs etc. There are two solutions here, sophisticated SED modeling incorporating far-IR observations, or simply start from square one in the near-IR (aka UKIDSS and VISTA). Fig. 9 shows the impact of dust attenuation as a function of inclination on the luminosity distributions of discs and bulges at various wavelengths, indicating the severity of the effect.

## Disconnect with hierarchical-CDM

The disc of the Milky-way is thin, remarkably thin, and appears to have formed some time ago and exhibited a remarkably quiescent history. While one may argue that the Milky Way is a 10-sigma event it certainly doesn't appear to be in any global way. So how in a hierarchical-CDM Universe can such fragile structure come about and remain so pristine for so long. Our recent census indicates that approximately 60% of the stellar mass is in the form of extended discs. If discs can only form after the last major merger event then major mergers are the secondary formation mechanism confined to the high-z Universe. The question we're left with is what is the dominant mechanism?

## The star-gas conspiracy

Perhaps one of the most puzzling aspects of the empirical dataset, which highlights the very different picture one might draw from optical versus radio observations, and hence the need to go truly multi-wavelength, is the comparison of the cosmic star-formation history with the cosmic HI gas history as shown on Fig. 10. While the cosmic star-formation shows a varied history the neutral gas content of galaxies appears to stay constant. If borne out then one needs cold gas to infall at precisely the rate require to counteract the gas lost to star-formation. This suggests a remarkable conspiracy between the stars and the gas but more importantly the need to better couple optical and radio observations.

My belief is that the answers to the above challenges do not lie in the numerical simulations but in the empirical datasets heading our way, and it is imperative that the people resources and appropriate techniques are put in place to manage and merge these data streams. Fig. 11 shows a possible starting point for our empirical blueprint, showing the era of AGN activity which (because of the SMBH connection) must link with bulge formation, and the era of star-formation which must link with disc growth. As this dwindles we perhaps see three clear phases: bulge growth, disc growth and the current era of secular evolution. The first goal of the new decade will be to attempt to ask whether the new data confirms or refutes this simple sketch.

# Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA)

From the above I argue that a new kind of galaxy database is needed which is deep enough to provide complete and accurate photometry, has sufficient resolution to enable bulge-disc decomposition, directly samples the dust, stars and gas (opt, IR, radio), and with high spectroscopic completeness and sample size as to squeeze out the biases. The Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey has been designed with this in mind, and aims to survey a common block of sky with GALEX, VST, VISTA, HERSCHEL, (WISE), and ASKAP while obtaining spectroscopic redshift confirmation to $r<19.8$ mag with exceptional completeness. The survey is nearing the completion of its initial AAT allocation (66 nights) enabling the acquisition of 120k systems. Incoming data from all of the imaging facilities will arrive in 2010 followed by ASKAP from 2012, providing the best possible database from which to start building a detailed empirical blueprint of galaxy formation. More details on the GAMA project can be found in Driver et al (2009) or simply follow our progress on astro-ph. Anyone wishing to become involved in the GAMA project should feel free to contact spd3st-and.ac.uk.


abstract: We present an extensive computer simulation study of structure formation in amphiphilic block copolymer solutions after a quench from a homogeneous state. By using a mesoscopic field-based simulation method, we are able to access time scales in the range of a second. A "phase diagram" of final structures is mapped out as a function of the concentration and solvent-philicity of the copolymers. A rich spectrum of structures is observed, ranging from spherical and rodlike micelles and vesicles to toroidal and net-cage micelles. The dynamical pathways leading to these structures are analyzed in detail, and possible ways to control the structures are discussed briefly.
author: Xuehao He; Friederike Schmid
title: Spontaneous formation of complex micelles from homogeneous solution

Amphiphilic molecules in solution such as lipids or amphiphilic block copolymers self-assemble into a variety of structures, *e.g.*, spherical or cylindrical micelles, lamellae, and vesicles. In the case of single-component amphiphiles, vesicular and toroidal structures are energetically less favorable than lamellar and cylindrical structures due to the energy penalty for bending. Nevertheless, they may be stabilized by entropic or kinetic factors and still form spontaneously. These structures provide new opportunities for designing soft materials with enhanced functionalities for various applications, such as complex micro release systems or templates for nanodevice fabrication. A detailed understanding of the aggregation process is crucial to understand and eventually control their formation.

In the past decades, a number of experimental studies have revealed the rich diversity of micellar morphologies displayed by amphiphilic systems. Besides spherical, rodlike or wormlike micelles, micelles with various special topologies have been observed, such as unilamellar and multilamellar vesicles, onion vesicles, genus vesicles, toroidal micelles with one or several rings, and net or cage micelles. The experiments indicated that the micellar structures and size distributions not only depend on molecular parameters, *i.e.*, the chain length of the amphiphilic molecules, the hydrophilic-to-hydrophobic ratio, the molecular stiffness and the intermolecular interactions, but also on system parameters such as the concentration, and on kinetic factors such as the diffusion ability of the amphiphilic molecules and the details of the manufacturing process. Unfortunately, detailed dynamical information on the process of spontaneous micelle formation is scarce. Only a few groups have captured the process of spontaneous vesicle formation in solutions of amphiphile mixtures and proposed a possible pathway of vesicle formation .

According to this "standard" pathway (PC), the amphiphilic molecules first self-assemble into small spherical micelles, these then coalesce to rods, the rods transform themselves to bilayers, and finally, the bilayers bend around and close up to vesicles. The last two steps are driven by the rim energy of the bilayers. The mechanism has been confirmed by computer simulations of different coarse-grained models. It clearly contributes to the formation of vesicles in amphiphilic systems. However, it cannot explain the existence of complex toroidal structures, since no force pushes rodlike micelles with two detached end caps to form rings, let alone cage structures. In a recent paper, we have reported the existence of an alternative pathway of vesicle formation in copolymer solutions (PG). In this pathway, the micelles do not coalesce, but simply grow by attracting copolymers from the solution. Once a critical micelle size is exceeded, copolymers start to flipflop such that the micelle core becomes solvent-philic ("semivesicle" state). Finally, solvent diffuses inside the core, and the semivesicle swells into a vesicle. The two pathways are illustrated in Fig.  (see below for simulation details). The pathway PG may provide a possible route to toroidal structures.

In this letter, we report on an extensive systematic study of structure formation in a single-component amphiphilic diblock copolymer system. The final self-assembled structures depend strongly on the copolymer concentration and the interaction parameters. By varying the latter over a wide range, we can map out the final topologies in a unifying "phase diagram". The simulations allow to investigate the formation process in detail. Both pathways PC and PG described above can be observed, depending on the copolymer concentration. We find that vesicles and rodlike micelles may form irrespective of the pathway, but toroidal structures only form *via* the pathway PG. Our results thus demonstrate that complex structure formation is not only controlled by the molecular packing parameters, but also, crucially, by the details of the segregation kinetics.

Complex vesicle formation has also been studied recently by Sevink and Zvelindovsky. They considered copolymers made of two incompatible blocks that were both basically solvent-phobic. As a result, the copolymers aggregated to compact, internally structured droplets (onion vesicles) with a relatively low solvent content (a few percent). In contrast, in this work, we focus on copolymers with strongly solvent-philic components, and on open and hollow structures.

We consider a system of amphiphilic diblock copolymers $P$ (copolymer volume fraction $\Phi_P$) with solvent-phobic blocks $A$ (chain fraction $c_A$) and solvent-philic blocks $B$ (chain fraction $c_B = 1-c_A$), immersed in a solvent $S$. The monomer interactions are characterized in terms of Flory-Huggins parameters $\chi_{AB}$, $\chi_{AS}$, and $\chi_{BS}$. A compressibility modulus $\kappa_H$ ensures that the local density (polymer plus solvent) is roughly constant. The time evolution of the system is modeled with External Potential Dynamics, a dynamic density functional theory which locally conserves densities and is approximately valid for Rouse-type chain dynamics, but neglects hydrodynamics and reptation (see Ref. for a compilation of the dynamical equations). The relevant dynamical model parameters are the mobility coefficients $D_S$ and $D_P$ of the solvent and the copolymer.

The parameter $\chi_{BS}$ and $\Phi_P$ were variable. The other model parameters were set to $\chi_{AB} = 0.896$, $\chi_{AS}=1.024$, $\kappa_H=1.176$, $c_B/c_A = 0.133$, and $D_S/D_P = 17$. The high values of $\chi_{AS}$ and $\chi_{AB}$ ensured that the $A$-blocks segregate well from the $B$-blocks and the solvent. Copolymers with short $B$-blocks were used to stabilize bilayer structures in the regime where $B$ is swollen with solvent. The remaining parameters, $D_P$ and $R_g$ (the unperturbed radius of gyration of the chains), set the length scale ($r_0 := R_g/3$) and the time scale ($\tau_0:=r_0^2/D_P$) of the simulation. Mapping these to real copolymer solutions such as, *e.g.*, those studied in Ref.  ($D_P\approx 10^{-6}$cm${}^2$s${}^{-1}$ and $R_g \approx 30$nm), we find that our time unit corresponds to roughly $\tau_0 \sim 10^{-6} s$.

On the technical side, the parameters of the simulation were as follows: The time step for integration of the dynamical equation was chosen $\Delta \tau = 0.02 \tau_0$, on a spatial grid with grid size $r_0 = R_g/3$. The contours of the copolymer chains were discretized with $N=17$ steps. A small Gaussian noise was added to mimick the effect of thermal fluctuations. The longest total simulation time was $7.2 \times 10^5 \tau_0$, corresponding to 0.72 second.

Fig.  shows a diagram of final structures, obtained after quenching the system suddenly from an initially perfectly homogeneous state. The solvent-philicity $\chi_{BS}$ ranges from positive to negative, in order to represent a wide class of amphiphilic block copolymers from nonionic to ionic. In addition, the copolymer volume fraction $\Phi_P$ was varied in the region where interesting structures were observed.

In order for structure formation to take place, the copolymer concentration $\Phi_P$ must exceed a certain critical value, which can be identified with the CMC (critical micelle concentration). At lower copolymer concentrations, the translational entropy of the copolymers prevents them from aggregating. The shape of the final structures depends on the solvent-philicity of the $B$-block, ($-\chi_{BS}$). At moderate $\chi_{BS}$ ($\chi_{BS} > 0$), the system favors bilayer structures and the copolymers aggregate to vesicles. As the solvent quality for the $B$-block increases ($\chi_{BS} < 0$), the $B$-block swells. Its radius $R_B$ roughly scales with $R_B \sim (c_B N)^{3/5} (1/2 -
\chi_{BS})^{1/5}$ ($N$ is the chain length). This in turn decreases the critical packing parameter, the bilayers become unstable and give way to cylindrical and spherical structures. Consequently, the copolymers aggregate to rods and/or spheres in most of the parameter region. Close to the CMC, however, more complex structures are formed: Ring micelles, toroidal micelles, and even cage-like micelles.

To understand why these complex micelles appear, one must inspect the pathways of structure formation in more detail. Both pathways to vesicle formation, PC and PG, are observed in our system (Fig. ). Likewise, rod formation also proceeds *via* the two distinct pathways micelle coalescence (PC), or (anisotropic) micelle growth (PG), depending on the copolymer volume fraction (Fig. ): Coalescence takes place at $\Phi_P \stackrel{>}{~}0.2$. Rings and toroidal micelles emerge at much lower copolymer volume fraction, and their formation is clearly driven by a growth mechanism. Fig. a shows the pathway to ring formation, where spherical micelles first grow into small disks, a hole then nucleates at the center of the disks, and finally, the perforated disks evolve into rings. Even closer to the CMC, the same mechanism leads to the formation of toroidal micelles: The micelles first grow into semivesicles or small vesicles, then several holes appear in the vesicle shells, until finally, the perforated vesicles grow into toroidal micelles (Fig b,c). The number of holes depends on the size of the embryo vesicle at the time of breakup. Close to the CMC, the dynamical stability of large vesicles increases: The initial number of micellar nuclei is small and they are far apart, hence the vesicles are not perturbed by the environment and break up late. As a result, large cage micelles can be obtained in the vicinity of the CMC (Fig. c).

Next we examine the early stages of micelle aggregation. To this end, we define the segregation parameter $\sigma = \int {\rm d}r |\Phi_A(r) + \Phi_B(r) - \Phi_P|/V$, where $\Phi_A(r)$ and $\Phi_B(r)$ are local monomer densities, and $V$ is the volume. Looking at $\sigma$ as a function of time, we find that the copolymer segregation proceeds in an almost step-like fashion after a well-defined "incubation time" $\tau^*$ (Fig. , inset). Fig.  shows the incubation times as a function of $\chi_{BS}$ for different copolymer volume fractions $\Phi_P$. Remarkably, most curves collapse onto a single power law function $1/\tau^* = A \cdot (\chi_{BS} - \chi^*)^\alpha$ with the exponent $\alpha \approx 1.25$ after a simple shift of $\chi_{BS}$ by $\chi^*(\Phi_P) = 1.3-11 \Phi_P$. Only for the lowest copolymer volume fractions, $\Phi_P=0.13$ and $\Phi_P=0.15$, do the data fail to collapse; however, the slopes of these curves, shifted by $\chi^*$ and plotted in a double logarithmic way, are still comparable to $\alpha$.

A similar power law behavior has been observed previously in a simulation study of vesicle formation in two dimensions. It was explained in terms of the Cahn-Hilliard theory for spinodal decomposition, and $\chi^*$ was identified with the spinodal for macrophase separation between polymer and solvent. In the present case, however, $\chi^*(\Phi_P)$ is significantly lower than that spinodal, it seems rather related to the CMC (cf. Fig. ). It is worth noting that data collapse and power law behavior is observed in a range of $\Phi_P$ *regardless* of the final structure and the dynamical pathway of structure formation. This suggests that the characteristics of the initial stage of segregation are universal and related to a spinodal-type instability.

Once created, the micelles grow by attracting copolymers from the solution. In the pathway PC, the growth is supplemented by micelle coalescence. The question arises under which conditions this happens. In fact, most fusion events take place at early times (see Fig.  a1,a2). At later stages, they are impeded by two factors: The formation of a well-segregated, swollen $B$-corona at the surface of the micelles, and the emerging copolymer depletion zone around the micelles. Hence the density of micelle nuclei at the early stage is a candidate quantity that might select between pathways. The crossover between pathways is observed at the copolymer volume fraction $\Phi_P \approx 0.2$. Taking into account that a large fraction of copolymers assembles into droplets almost simultaneously (at the time $\tau^*$), and that these droplet nuclei roughly have the diameter $2 R_g$, we can estimate the average distance $D$ between droplets at given copolymer content *via* $(2R_g/D)^3 \sim \Phi_P$. At $\Phi_P = 0.2$, $D$ is of the order $R_g$. Hence the copolymers in solution are in contact with several droplets, they are attracted by all of them, and can serve as bridges that mediate fusion.

In the last stage, the structures ripen. As long as they are still small (semivesicle state), classical Oswald coarsening is observed (Fig. a3-a4, b3-b4): Small structures dissolve, large structures grow, driven by the competition of bulk and surface free energy. Once the structures have locally assumed their favored toroidal or bilayer structure, the Oswald process stops and the ripening is governed by much weaker thermodynamic forces, such as, *e.g.*, those associated with the bending energy. The time scales of these processes are very slow and out of reach for our simulation method. Therefore, we have carried out a set of simulations using external potential dynamics with locally non-conserved (but globally conserved) densities. This dynamical model is less realistic, but much faster, such that we could also assess later stages of the aging process. Specifically, we studied the evolution of a system containing two vesicles with different initial sizes in two and in three dimensions. In the case of ring micelles or two dimensional vesicles, the contribution of the bending energy favors a uniform size distribution: The energy of a single ring of radius $R$ is proportional to $k/R$ ($k$ being the bending rigidity), and the total energy for a fixed number of rings is minimal if all rings have the same diameter. Indeed, our two dimensional simulations showed that the sizes of the two rings converged in the course of the simulation: The small ring grew at the expense of the large ring. For three dimensional vesicles, the situation is different: The bending energy of a vesicle is $4 \pi k$, independent of its size. The total bending energy only depends on the number of vesicles, not on their size distribution. Consequently, we did not observe any sign of size uniformization, nor size disproportionation, in the three dimensional simulations. The same behavior has been observed in experiments.

To summarize, we have investigated the formation of toroidal micelles in copolymer solutions, and shown that such micelles may form in the vicinity of the CMC by a pathway that proceeds *via* the nucleation, growth, and subsequent breakup of vesicles. The competition of copolymer aggregation and self-assembly generates a kinetic trap that opens a route to manufacturing highly complex metastable structures. Several methods to control these kinetic traps are conceivable: Controlling the number of initial nuclei by planting seeds (prenucleation), quenching from different initial states(*e.g.*, quenching from a vesicle state), doping with additional components to tune the bilayer properties, or working with amphiphilic mixtures.

X.H. thanks the Alexander von Humboldt foundation for a research fellowship. The simulations were carried out at the Paderborn center for parallel computing.