Explaining image classifiers by removing input features using generative models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Perturbation-based explanation methods often measure the contribution of an input feature to an image classifier's outputs by heuristically removing it via e.g. blurring, adding noise, or graying out, which often produce unrealistic, out-of-samples. Instead, we propose to integrate a generative inpainter into three representative attribution methods to remove an input feature. Our proposed change improved all three methods in (1) generating more plausible counterfactual samples under the true data distribution; (2) being more accurate according to three metrics: object localization, deletion, and saliency metrics; and (3) being more robust to hyperparameter changes. Our findings were consistent across both ImageNet and Places365 datasets and two different pairs of classifiers and inpainters.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3.
5 papers.
- 2022Abs-CAM: A Gradient Optimization Interpretable Approach for Explanation of Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 20
- 2021Generative Counterfactuals for Neural Networks via Attribute-Informed Perturbationcited by 11
- 2022Deconfounding to Explanation Evaluation in Graph Neural Networkscited by 10
- 2021Explaining the Black-box Smoothly- A Counterfactual Approachcited by 1
- 2022Understanding CNNs from excitationscited by 1
- 2022Abs-CAM: A Gradient Optimization Interpretable Approach for Explanation of Convolutional Neural Networks8 Jul 2022
- 2022Understanding CNNs from excitations2 May 2022
- 2022Deconfounding to Explanation Evaluation in Graph Neural Networks21 Jan 2022
- 2021Generative Counterfactuals for Neural Networks via Attribute-Informed Perturbation18 Jan 2021
- 2021Explaining the Black-box Smoothly- A Counterfactual Approach11 Jan 2021