arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2506.07327cs.CVcs.LG

CASE:用于类敏感解释的对比激活

CASE: Contrastive Activation for Class-Sensitive Explanations

University of Virginia(弗吉尼亚大学)

Dane Williamson, Yangfeng Ji, Matthew Dwyer

AI总结:

本文提出类敏感性诊断测试,发现多数显著性方法对竞争类标签产生几乎相同的解释,并引入对比解释方法CASE,以分离预测类独有的判别特征,生成更忠实且类别特异的解释。

摘要:

显著性方法被广泛用于可视化哪些输入特征被认为与模型的预测相关。然而,它们的视觉合理性可能掩盖关键局限性。在这项工作中,我们提出了一种针对类敏感性的诊断测试:即方法在同一输入上区分竞争类标签的能力。通过大量实验,我们表明许多广泛使用的显著性方法无论类别标签如何都会产生几乎相同的解释,这对其可靠性提出了质疑。我们发现类不敏感行为在多种架构和数据集上持续存在,这表明该失败模式是结构性的而非特定于模型的。基于这些发现,我们引入了CASE,一种对比解释方法,它能够分离出对预测类具有独特判别性的特征。我们使用所提出的诊断测试和基于扰动的保真度测试来评估CASE,并表明它比现有方法产生更忠实且更具类别特异性的解释。

英文摘要:

Saliency methods are widely used to visualize which input features are deemed relevant to a model's prediction. However, their visual plausibility can obscure critical limitations. In this work, we propose a diagnostic test for class sensitivity: a method's ability to distinguish between competing class labels on the same input. Through extensive experiments, we show that many widely used saliency methods produce nearly identical explanations regardless of the class label, calling into question their reliability. We find that class-insensitive behavior persists across architectures and datasets, suggesting the failure mode is structural rather than model-specific. Motivated by these findings, we introduce CASE, a contrastive explanation method that isolates features uniquely discriminative for the predicted class. We evaluate CASE using the proposed diagnostic and a perturbation-based fidelity test, and show that it produces faithful and more class-specific explanations than existing methods.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑