mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Are Inherently Interpretable Models More Robust? A Study In Music Emotion Recognition

arXiv 2508.03780 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2025cs.SD cs.AI eess.AScited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

One of the desired key properties of deep learning models is the ability to generalise to unseen samples. When provided with new samples that are (perceptually) similar to one or more training samples, deep learning models are expected to produce correspondingly similar outputs. Models that succeed in predicting similar outputs for similar inputs are often called robust. Deep learning models, on the other hand, have been shown to be highly vulnerable to minor (adversarial) perturbations of the input, which manage to drastically change a model's output and simultaneously expose its reliance on spurious correlations. In this work, we investigate whether inherently interpretable deep models, i.e., deep models that were designed to focus more on meaningful and interpretable features, are more robust to irrelevant perturbations in the data, compared to their black-box counterparts. We test our hypothesis by comparing the robustness of an interpretable and a black-box music emotion recognition (MER) model when challenged with adversarial examples. Furthermore, we include an adversarially trained model, which is optimised to be more robust, in the comparison. Our results indicate that inherently more interpretable models can indeed be more robust than their black-box counterparts, and achieve similar levels of robustness as adversarially trained models, at lower computational cost.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2025.

Builds on

24 of 38 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
  3. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
  4. 2016Adversarial examples in the physical worldcited by 1,769
  5. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
  6. 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 953
  7. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
  8. 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 737
  9. 2019Adversarial Training for Free!cited by 643
  10. 2018Audio Adversarial Examples: Targeted Attacks on Speech-to-Textcited by 274
  11. 2019You Only Propagate Once: Accelerating Adversarial Training via Maximal Principlecited by 183
  12. 2018Disentangling Adversarial Robustness and Generalizationcited by 172
12 more
  1. 2019On the Connection Between Adversarial Robustness and Saliency Map Interpretabilitycited by 80
  2. 2023Learning Bottleneck Concepts in Image Classificationcited by 49
  3. 2020Proper Network Interpretability Helps Adversarial Robustness in Classificationcited by 41
  4. 2020Learning Interpretable Representation for Controllable Polyphonic Music Generationcited by 40
  5. 2019Toward Interpretable Music Tagging with Self-Attentioncited by 30
  6. 2020Adversarial Examples in Deep Learning for Multivariate Time Series Regressioncited by 26
  7. 2015Deep Learning and Music Adversariescited by 20
  8. 2018Adversarial Attacks, Regression, and Numerical Stability Regularizationcited by 14
  9. 2019Towards Explainable Music Emotion Recognition: The Route via Mid-level Featurescited by 10
  10. 2018A data-driven approach to mid-level perceptual musical feature modelingcited by 9
  11. 2024Exploring the Interplay of Interpretability and Robustness in Deep Neural Networks: A Saliency-guided Approachcited by 7
  12. 2022A Model You Can Hear: Audio Identification with Playable Prototypescited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.