Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explainable AI for Natural Adversarial Images

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 2106.09106 v1 pith:2XGOOMSQ submitted 2021-06-16 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords adversarialimagesexamplesexplainablehumansmapspredictsaliency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Adversarial images highlight how vulnerable modern image classifiers are to perturbations outside of their training set. Human oversight might mitigate this weakness, but depends on humans understanding the AI well enough to predict when it is likely to make a mistake. In previous work we have found that humans tend to assume that the AI's decision process mirrors their own. Here we evaluate if methods from explainable AI can disrupt this assumption to help participants predict AI classifications for adversarial and standard images. We find that both saliency maps and examples facilitate catching AI errors, but their effects are not additive, and saliency maps are more effective than examples.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. What Makes for a Good Saliency Map? Comparing Strategies for Evaluating Saliency Maps in Explainable AI (XAI)

    cs.HC 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A user study of 166 ICT graduates shows Grad-CAM best improves users' ability to predict classifier accuracy, Guided Backpropagation scores best on mathematical metrics, and the two rankings do not align.

Pith tools