A Comprehensive and Reliable Feature Attribution Method: Double-sided Remove and Reconstruct (DoRaR)
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The limited transparency of the inner decision-making mechanism in deep neural networks (DNN) and other machine learning (ML) models has hindered their application in several domains. In order to tackle this issue, feature attribution methods have been developed to identify the crucial features that heavily influence decisions made by these black box models. However, many feature attribution methods have inherent downsides. For example, one category of feature attribution methods suffers from the artifacts problem, which feeds out-of-distribution masked inputs directly through the classifier that was originally trained on natural data points. Another category of feature attribution method finds explanations by using jointly trained feature selectors and predictors. While avoiding the artifacts problem, this new category suffers from the Encoding Prediction in the Explanation (EPITE) problem, in which the predictor's decisions rely not on the features, but on the masks that selects those features. As a result, the credibility of attribution results is undermined by these downsides. In this research, we introduce the Double-sided Remove and Reconstruct (DoRaR) feature attribution method based on several improvement methods that addresses these issues. By conducting thorough testing on MNIST, CIFAR10 and our own synthetic dataset, we demonstrate that the DoRaR feature attribution method can effectively bypass the above issues and can aid in training a feature selector that outperforms other state-of-the-art feature attribution methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/dxq21/DoRaR.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Oct 2023.
Builds on
24 of 36 references.
References · 24
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2016Categorical Reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmaxcited by 2,708
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
- 2014Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Imagescited by 774
- 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 611
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2017Deep Layer Aggregationcited by 436
12 more
- 2014Understanding Deep Image Representations by Inverting Themcited by 399
- 2015Understanding Neural Networks Through Deep Visualizationcited by 332
- 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
- 2017Real Time Image Saliency for Black Box Classifierscited by 246
- 2018Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 237
- 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 215
- 2017Visualizing Deep Neural Network Decisions: Prediction Difference Analysiscited by 166
- 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
- 2022A Consistent and Efficient Evaluation Strategy for Attribution Methodscited by 100
- 2021Towards Self-Explainable Graph Neural Networkcited by 75
- 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
- 2018Towards Explanation of DNN-based Prediction with Guided Feature Inversioncited by 31
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
3 papers.