CRAFT: Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization for Explainability

Attribution methods, which employ heatmaps to identify the most influential regions of an image that impact model decisions, have gained widespread popularity as a type of explainability method. However, recent research has exposed the limited practical value of these methods, attributed in part to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inProceedings (IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Online) Vol. 2023; pp. 2711 - 2721
Main Authors Fel, Thomas, Picard, Agustin, Bethune, Louis, Boissin, Thibaut, Vigouroux, David, Colin, Julien, Cadenc, Remi, Serre, Thomas
Format Conference Proceeding Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States IEEE 01.06.2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Attribution methods, which employ heatmaps to identify the most influential regions of an image that impact model decisions, have gained widespread popularity as a type of explainability method. However, recent research has exposed the limited practical value of these methods, attributed in part to their narrow focus on the most prominent regions of an image - revealing "where" the model looks, but failing to elucidate "what" the model sees in those areas. In this work, we try to fill in this gap with CRAFT - a novel approach to identify both "what" and "where" by generating concept-based explanations. We introduce 3 new ingredients to the automatic concept extraction literature: (i) a recursive strategy to detect and decompose concepts across layers, (ii) a novel method for a more faithful estimation of concept importance using Sobol indices, and (iii) the use of implicit differentiation to unlock Concept Attribution Maps. We conduct both human and computer vision experiments to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed approach. We show that the proposed concept importance estimation technique is more faithful to the model than previous methods. When evaluating the usefulness of the method for human experimenters on a human-centered utility benchmark, we find that our approach significantly improves on two of the three test scenarios.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1063-6919
1063-6919
2575-7075
DOI:10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00266