Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Towards Best Practice in Explaining Neural Network Decisions with LRP

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1910.09840 v3 pith:KDHJFO7A submitted 2019-10-22 cs.LG cs.CVstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.CVstat.ML
keywords bestmethodneuralpracticenetworkobjecttimealone
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Within the last decade, neural network based predictors have demonstrated impressive - and at times super-human - capabilities. This performance is often paid for with an intransparent prediction process and thus has sparked numerous contributions in the novel field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we focus on a popular and widely used method of XAI, the Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP). Since its initial proposition LRP has evolved as a method, and a best practice for applying the method has tacitly emerged, based however on humanly observed evidence alone. In this paper we investigate - and for the first time quantify - the effect of this current best practice on feedforward neural networks in a visual object detection setting. The results verify that the layer-dependent approach to LRP applied in recent literature better represents the model's reasoning, and at the same time increases the object localization and class discriminativity of LRP.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A deep learning approach to track eye movements based on events

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM model predicts pupil center coordinates from event camera frames with roughly 81% pixel accuracy on a public eye-tracking dataset, outperforming CNN-GRU and CNN-BiLSTM in this comparison.

Pith tools