mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Robust Semantic Interpretability: Revisiting Concept Activation Vectors

arXiv 2104.02768 ↗First posted 6 Apr 2021stat.ML cs.AI cs.CVcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Interpretability methods for image classification assess model trustworthiness by attempting to expose whether the model is systematically biased or attending to the same cues as a human would. Saliency methods for feature attribution dominate the interpretability literature, but these methods do not address semantic concepts such as the textures, colors, or genders of objects within an image. Our proposed Robust Concept Activation Vectors (RCAV) quantifies the effects of semantic concepts on individual model predictions and on model behavior as a whole. RCAV calculates a concept gradient and takes a gradient ascent step to assess model sensitivity to the given concept. By generalizing previous work on concept activation vectors to account for model non-linearity, and by introducing stricter hypothesis testing, we show that RCAV yields interpretations which are both more accurate at the image level and robust at the dataset level. RCAV, like saliency methods, supports the interpretation of individual predictions. To evaluate the practical use of interpretability methods as debugging tools, and the scientific use of interpretability methods for identifying inductive biases (e.g. texture over shape), we construct two datasets and accompanying metrics for realistic benchmarking of semantic interpretability methods. Our benchmarks expose the importance of counterfactual augmentation and negative controls for quantifying the practical usability of interpretability methods.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Apr 2021.

Builds on

27 of 33 references.

References · 27

  1. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  2. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,451
  3. 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,155
  4. 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,283
  5. 2014Going Deeper with Convolutionscited by 4,231
  6. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
  7. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  8. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  9. 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 703
  10. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  11. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
  12. 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 374
15 more
  1. 2020Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Netscited by 318
  2. 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 303
  3. 2017Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanationscited by 293
  4. 2018Learning Not to Learn: Training Deep Neural Networks with Biased Datacited by 255
  5. 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
  6. 2018Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 179
  7. 2018MixUp as Locally Linear Out-Of-Manifold Regularizationcited by 158
  8. 2019REPAIR: Removing Representation Bias by Dataset Resamplingcited by 157
  9. 2019Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learningcited by 146
  10. 2017What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?cited by 127
  11. 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
  12. 2018Interpreting CNNs via Decision Treescited by 89
  13. 2019Benchmarking Attribution Methods with Relative Feature Importancecited by 89
  14. 2018Human-in-the-Loop Interpretability Priorcited by 35
  15. 2019Towards Automatic Concept-based Explanationscited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 4; 2023: 5; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: