Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Explaining Image Classifiers

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 2401.13752 v1 pith:ZJNLGNJA submitted 2024-01-24 cs.AI

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

We focus on explaining image classifiers, taking the work of Mothilal et al. [2021] (MMTS) as our point of departure. We observe that, although MMTS claim to be using the definition of explanation proposed by Halpern [2016], they do not quite do so. Roughly speaking, Halpern's definition has a necessity clause and a sufficiency clause. MMTS replace the necessity clause by a requirement that, as we show, implies it. Halpern's definition also allows agents to restrict the set of options considered. While these difference may seem minor, as we show, they can have a nontrivial impact on explanations. We also show that, essentially without change, Halpern's definition can handle two issues that have proved difficult for other approaches: explanations of absence (when, for example, an image classifier for tumors outputs "no tumor") and explanations of rare events (such as tumors).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Robot Pouring: Identifying Causes of Spillage and Selecting Alternative Action Parameters Using Probabilistic Actual Causation

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A probabilistic actual causation analysis of a simulated robot pouring task identifies causes of spillage and selects alternative parameters that prevent spillage in 87-89% of retried trials.

  2. Explain Yourself, Briefly! Self-Explaining Neural Networks with Concise Sufficient Reasons

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SST trains models to produce concise sufficient reasons as an extra output, yielding faster and often smaller explanations than post-hoc methods like Anchors and SIS.

  3. 3D ReX: Causal Explanations in 3D Neuroimaging Classification

    eess.IV 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A causality-based explainability tool for 3D medical image classifiers, demonstrated on stroke detection, produces voxel-level responsibility maps without accessing the model's internals.

Pith tools