Detection Accuracy for Evaluating Compositional Explanations of Units
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The recent success of deep learning models in solving complex problems and in different domains has increased interest in understanding what they learn. Therefore, different approaches have been employed to explain these models, one of which uses human-understandable concepts as explanations. Two examples of methods that use this approach are Network Dissection and Compositional explanations. The former explains units using atomic concepts, while the latter makes explanations more expressive, replacing atomic concepts with logical forms. While intuitively, logical forms are more informative than atomic concepts, it is not clear how to quantify this improvement, and their evaluation is often based on the same metric that is optimized during the search-process and on the usage of hyper-parameters to be tuned. In this paper, we propose to use as evaluation metric the Detection Accuracy, which measures units' consistency of detection of their assigned explanations. We show that this metric (1) evaluates explanations of different lengths effectively, (2) can be used as a stopping criterion for the compositional explanation search, eliminating the explanation length hyper-parameter, and (3) exposes new specialized units whose length 1 explanations are the perceptual abstractions of their longer explanations.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2021.
Builds on
24 of 41 references.
References · 24
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 703
- 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
12 more
- 2014Understanding Deep Image Representations by Inverting Themcited by 399
- 2016Generating Videos with Scene Dynamicscited by 376
- 2016Synthesizing the preferred inputs for neurons in neural networks via deep generator networkscited by 181
- 2014Object Detectors Emerge in Deep Scene CNNscited by 178
- 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
- 2018Explaining Explanations in AIcited by 136
- 2019Pruning by Explaining: A Novel Criterion for Deep Neural Network Pruningcited by 89
- 2017Towards better understanding of gradient-based attribution methods for Deep Neural Networkscited by 51
- 2020What Do You See? Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Interpretability through Neural Backdoorscited by 32
- 2018NeuroX: A Toolkit for Analyzing Individual Neurons in Neural Networkscited by 31
- 2019Evaluating Explanation Without Ground Truth in Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 28
- 2016Do semantic parts emerge in Convolutional Neural Networks?cited by 23
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 2.
3 papers.