arXiv subjects

Lorenzo Caputi

Publications and source records attributed to Lorenzo Caputi.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do AI Activity Indices Really Measure AI Activity?

AI dashboards increasingly shape economic debate, yet their headline movements often conceal what changed. For a ratio, the same rise can reflect numerator growth, denominator decline, or both. This ambiguity creates structural non-identification: adding observations or richer fixed effects cannot recover the missing information. We propose three propositions showing that a relative-index regression blends the causal effect of interest with co-movement between focal and aggregate activity and shocks shared with the outcome. These components can give the coefficient either sign under a zero effect, or erase it under a nonzero effect. Publishing denominator levels changes what can be learned by removing the co-movement channel exactly, although shared-shock confounding remains. The problem extends to power: if most identifying variation comes from a handful of units, those units determine what the design can detect, however large the nominal sample looks. At a fixed standard error, the minimum detectable effect diverges as the effective cluster count approaches one, leaving a null result uninformative. We apply this framework to OECD.AI's hiring index and Eurostat employment across 24-27 European countries, where the detection floor exceeds the reported association. In a refreshed panel, that association disappears once the 2021 survey break is excluded. Ratio indices can still reveal concentration, timing, and co-movement, but establishing displacement requires more; our framework turns that boundary into a practical standard by making denominator levels a minimum disclosure requirement.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2026

Modeling The Object Representations Underlying Human Physical Reasoning

Humans appear to represent objects when reasoning about physics with coarse, volumetric "bodies" that smooth concavities, trading fine visual detail for efficient physical predictions. Yet, the structure of these representations remains largely unknown. Segmentation models, in contrast, are trained for pixel-accurate masks that may misalign with such bodies. We ask whether and when these models nonetheless acquire human-like object representations. Using a time-to-collision (TTC) and change detection (CD) behavioral task with data from 178 and 50 human participants, respectively, we introduce a pipeline and an alignment metric to compare the visual representations of segmentation models to those of humans. We do this systematically on multiple architectures (DINOv2, SegFormer, DeepLabV3+, and UPerNet), varying their size and training time. We find that briefly trained models segment objects too coarsely, aligning poorly with humans, while fully trained models segment objects too finely. For each model, there is an intermediate training regime that best matches the coarse bodies observed in human behaviour, and larger models tend to reach it earlier. We show these bodies emerge under resource constraints in general-purpose vision models, providing computational support to resource-rational accounts of human cognition. This work provides a foundational framework for testing alignment between vision models and humans and shows there is a growing gap between the state-of-the-art in artificial intelligence and human cognition, driven by scaling model size and training.

cs.CV↗