Benchmarking the Attribution Quality of Vision Models

Overview

• Attribution maps are a tool used to explain the inner workings of computer vision models by highlighting the most relevant input features for a given prediction.
• Despite extensive research on new attribution methods, properly evaluating these methods remains a challenge.
• This paper proposes a novel evaluation protocol to address limitations of the widely used incremental-deletion protocol.
• The new protocol allows for evaluating 23 attribution methods and studying how design choices in vision models affect attribution quality.

Plain English Explanation

Attribution maps are like heat maps that show which parts of an image are most important for a deep neural network's prediction. For example, if the network is trying to identify a dog in an image, the attribution map would highlight the dog's key features as being the most relevant.

While many new techniques have been developed to create these attribution maps, it's been difficult to properly evaluate and compare them. The standard way of doing this, called incremental deletion, has some limitations.

This research paper introduces a new way to evaluate attribution methods that overcomes these limitations. Using this new protocol, the researchers were able to assess 23 different attribution techniques and see how design choices in the underlying neural network models affect the quality of the attribution maps.

Some key findings:

• Neural networks that are designed to be more "explainable" from the start produce better attribution maps than standard models.
• The raw attribution values themselves (before any post-processing) actually provide higher quality explanations than previously thought.
• Certain architectural choices in the neural networks, like the type of layers used, can improve the quality of the attribution maps they produce.

Overall, this research provides important insights into how to better evaluate and improve the explanatory power of deep learning models in computer vision.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a novel evaluation protocol for attribution methods that addresses two key limitations of the widely used incremental-deletion protocol:

1. Out-of-domain issue: Incremental deletion relies on perturbing the input, which can lead to evaluating the attribution on out-of-domain examples that the model was not trained on.

2. Lacking inter-model comparisons: Incremental deletion only allows for evaluating attribution within a single model, making it difficult to compare across different model architectures.

The new protocol uses a technique called TVE-Learning to generate high-quality synthetic examples that are guaranteed to be in-domain. This allows for fair comparisons of attribution quality both within a single model and across different models.

Using this new protocol, the researchers evaluated 23 different attribution methods across 8 different vision model architectures. Some key findings:

• Intrinsically explainable models outperformed standard vision models in terms of attribution quality.
• Raw attribution values (before any post-processing) exhibited higher quality than previously reported, contradicting the common belief that post-processing is necessary.
• Systematic changes to model design, such as the type of layers used, had consistent effects on attribution quality, indicating certain architectural choices can promote better explanations.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a strong case for the limitations of the incremental-deletion protocol and the value of the proposed new evaluation protocol. By using synthetic in-domain examples, the new protocol avoids the out-of-domain issue and enables fair comparisons across models.

However, the paper does not address potential limitations of the TVE-Learning technique used to generate the synthetic examples. There may be concerns about how representative these examples are of real-world data, or whether the technique introduces any biases.

Additionally, while the paper explores the effect of model architecture on attribution quality, it does not delve into the specific mechanisms by which different design choices impact the explanations. More research is needed to fully understand the relationship between model structure and interpretability.

Finally, the paper focuses solely on evaluation metrics and does not address the challenge of building reliable and trustworthy conceptual explanations that are meaningful to human users. Further work is needed to connect model-centric evaluation metrics to human-centric measures of explanation quality.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel evaluation protocol for attribution methods that overcomes limitations of the widely used incremental-deletion approach. Using this new protocol, the researchers were able to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 23 attribution techniques across different vision model architectures.

The key findings suggest that intrinsically explainable models and certain architectural choices can improve the quality of attribution explanations. Additionally, the paper challenges the common belief that post-processing is necessary to obtain high-quality attributions.

These insights have important implications for the development of more interpretable and trustworthy deep learning systems in computer vision. By better understanding the factors that influence attribution quality, researchers and practitioners can work towards building AI models that are not only accurate, but also transparent and understandable.