Sampling Based On Natural Image Statistics Improves Local Surrogate Explainers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Many problems in computer vision have recently been tackled using models whose predictions cannot be easily interpreted, most commonly deep neural networks. Surrogate explainers are a popular post-hoc interpretability method to further understand how a model arrives at a particular prediction. By training a simple, more interpretable model to locally approximate the decision boundary of a non-interpretable system, we can estimate the relative importance of the input features on the prediction. Focusing on images, surrogate explainers, e.g., LIME, generate a local neighbourhood around a query image by sampling in an interpretable domain. However, these interpretable domains have traditionally been derived exclusively from the intrinsic features of the query image, not taking into consideration the manifold of the data the non-interpretable model has been exposed to in training (or more generally, the manifold of real images). This leads to suboptimal surrogates trained on potentially low probability images. We address this limitation by aligning the local neighbourhood on which the surrogate is trained with the original training data distribution, even when this distribution is not accessible. We propose two approaches to do so, namely (1) altering the method for sampling the local neighbourhood and (2) using perceptual metrics to convey some of the properties of the distribution of natural images.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2022.
Builds on
22 of 31 references.
References · 22
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
- 2022Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latentscited by 6,585
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2022Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understandingcited by 6,355
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
10 more
- 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
- 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 612
- 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 233
- 2020One Explanation Does Not Fit All: The Promise of Interactive Explanations for Machine Learning Transparencycited by 64
- 2019bLIMEy: Surrogate Prediction Explanations Beyond LIMEcited by 17
- 2021On the relation between statistical learning and perceptual distancescited by 12
- 2019"Why Should You Trust My Explanation?" Understanding Uncertainty in LIME Explanationscited by 9
- 2017Derivatives and Inverse of Cascaded Linear+Nonlinear Neural Modelscited by 8
- 2021On the overlooked issue of defining explanation objectives for local-surrogate explainerscited by 5
- 2021Explainers in the Wild: Making Surrogate Explainers Robust to Distortions through Perceptioncited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.