Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2311.17833 v3 pith:2Q3UJD7O submitted 2023-11-29 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords classifiersdecisionsexplanationsimagecounterfactualfailurefeaturesimages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

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. Which Modality Decides? Counterfactual Modality Attribution for Multimodal LLMs

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools