REVIEW 1 cited by
DiG-IN: Diffusion Guidance for Investigating Networks -- Uncovering Classifier Differences Neuron Visualisations and Visual Counterfactual Explanations
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
read the original abstract
While deep learning has led to huge progress in complex image classification tasks like ImageNet, unexpected failure modes, e.g. via spurious features, call into question how reliably these classifiers work in the wild. Furthermore, for safety-critical tasks the black-box nature of their decisions is problematic, and explanations or at least methods which make decisions plausible are needed urgently. In this paper, we address these problems by generating images that optimize a classifier-derived objective using a framework for guided image generation. We analyze the decisions of image classifiers by visual counterfactual explanations (VCEs), detection of systematic mistakes by analyzing images where classifiers maximally disagree, and visualization of neurons and spurious features. In this way, we validate existing observations, e.g. the shape bias of adversarially robust models, as well as novel failure modes, e.g. systematic errors of zero-shot CLIP classifiers. Moreover, our VCEs outperform previous work while being more versatile.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Which Modality Decides? Counterfactual Modality Attribution for Multimodal LLMs
CMA uses diffusion-generated counterfactuals and two-player Shapley values to measure whether an image or the text drives a multimodal LLM's prediction, hitting 98% on synthetic biased benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.