Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Investigating sanity checks for saliency maps with image and text classification

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 2106.07475 v1 pith:UJ5QUPVV submitted 2021-06-08 cs.LG cs.AI

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

Saliency maps have shown to be both useful and misleading for explaining model predictions especially in the context of images. In this paper, we perform sanity checks for text modality and show that the conclusions made for image do not directly transfer to text. We also analyze the effects of the input multiplier in certain saliency maps using similarity scores, max-sensitivity and infidelity evaluation metrics. Our observations reveal that the input multiplier carries input's structural patterns in explanation maps, thus leading to similar results regardless of the choice of model parameters. We also show that the smoothness of a Neural Network (NN) function can affect the quality of saliency-based explanations. Our investigations reveal that replacing ReLUs with Softplus and MaxPool with smoother variants such as LogSumExp (LSE) can lead to explanations that are more reliable based on the infidelity evaluation metric.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Reconciling Privacy and Explainability in High-Stakes: A Systematic Inquiry

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gradient-based explainers yield almost uncorrelated attributions on DP-trained chest X-ray models, so the authors recommend privatizing explanations from a non-private model instead.

  2. Saliency Maps are Ambiguous: Analysis of Logical Relations on First and Second Order Attributions

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On synthetic AND/OR/XOR datasets with perfectly accurate models, every tested saliency method sometimes ranks a truly irrelevant input above a necessary one, so the scores cannot be trusted as relevance rankings.

Pith tools