File size: 67,198 Bytes
8cf8144 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 |
\documentclass{article} \usepackage{iclr2019_conference,times}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{url}
\title{Visual Explanation by Interpretation:\\Improving Visual Feedback Capabilities of Deep Neural Networks}
\author{
Jos{\'e} Oramas M.\footnotemark[1] \hspace{3cm}
Kaili Wang\thanks{denotes equal contribution} \hspace{3cm}
Tinne Tuytelaars
\\
\hspace{5cm}\textit{KU Leuven, ESAT-PSI}
}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{hyperref} \usepackage{url} \usepackage{booktabs} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{microtype} \usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{subfig}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage[nodisplayskipstretch]{setspace}
\usepackage{color} \newcommand{\aniFlower}[0]{{\small an8Flower}}
\newcommand{\MNIST}[0]{{\small MNIST}}
\newcommand{\ILSVRC}[0]{{\small ILSVRC}}
\newcommand{\Fashion}[0]{{\small Fashion}}
\newcommand{\VGG}[0]{{\small VGG}}
\newcommand{\F}[0]{{\small F~}}
\newcommand{\DNNs}[0]{{\small DNNs}}
\newcommand{\DNN}[0]{{\small DNN}}
\newcommand{\imageNet}[0]{{\small imageNet}}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\definecolor{OliveGreen}{RGB}{0,180,0}
\newcommand{\jose}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\note}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\toremove}[1]{\textcolor{gray}{#1}}
\newcommand{\toupdate}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\newcommand{\tinne}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\iclrfinalcopy \begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Interpretation and explanation of deep models is critical
towards \tinne{wide} adoption of systems that rely on them.
In this paper, we propose a novel scheme for both interpretation as well as explanation in which, given a
pretrained model, we automatically identify internal features relevant
for the set of classes
considered by the model, without
\tinne{relying on} additional
annotations. We \textit{interpret} the model through average
visualizations of this reduced set of features.
Then, at test time, we \textit{explain} the network prediction by
accompanying the predicted class label with supporting
visualizations derived from the identified features.
In addition, we propose a method to address the artifacts
introduced by strided operations in deconvNet-based visualizations.
Moreover, we introduce \aniFlower, a dataset specifically designed
for objective quantitative evaluation of methods for visual explanation.
Experiments on the \MNIST, \ILSVRC12, \Fashion144k and \aniFlower ~datasets
show that our method produces detailed explanations with good coverage of
relevant features of the classes of interest.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Methods based on deep neural networks (\DNNs) have achieved impressive results for several
computer vision tasks, such as
image classification,
object detection
and image generation.
Combined with the general tendency in the Computer Vision community of developing
methods with a focus on high quantitative performance,
this has motivated the
\tinne{wide}
adoption of \DNN-based methods,
despite
\tinne{the initial skepticism due to}
their black-box characteristics.
In this work, we aim for more visually-descriptive predictions and
propose means to improve the quality of the visual feedback capabilities of
\DNN-based methods.
Our goal is to bridge the gap between methods aiming at model \textit{interpretation},
i.e.,~understanding what a given trained model has actually learned, and methods
aiming at model \textit{explanation}, i.e.,~justifying the decisions made by a model.
Model interpretation of \DNNs ~is commonly achieved in two ways: either by
a) manually inspecting visualizations of every single filter~(or a random subset thereof) from every layer of the network~(\cite{YosinskiDeepVis15,ZeilerDeconv14})
or, more recently, by b) exhaustively comparing the internal activations produced by a
given model w.r.t.~a dataset with pixel-wise annotations of possibly relevant concepts~(\cite{netdissect2017,fong18net2vec}).
These two paths have provided useful insights into the internal representations learned by \DNNs.
However, they both have their own weaknesses.
For the first case, the manual inspection of filter responses introduces a subjective bias,
as was evidenced by \cite{GonzalezGarcia2017DoSP}. In addition, the inspection of every
filter from every layer becomes a cognitive-expensive practice for deeper models,
which makes it a noisy process.
For the second case, as stated by \cite{netdissect2017}, the interpretation capabilities
over the network are limited by the concepts for which annotation is available. Moreover,
the cost of adding annotations for new concepts is quite high due to its pixel-wise nature.
A third weakness, shared by both cases, is inherited by the way in which they
generate spatial filter-wise responses, i.e., either through deconvolution-based
heatmaps~(\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15,ZeilerDeconv14}) or by up-scaling the
activation maps at a given layer/filter to the image space~(\cite{netdissect2017,zhou2015cnnlocalization}).
On the one hand,
deconvolution methods are able to produce heatmaps with
high level of detail from any filter in the network. However, as can be seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}\,(right), they suffer from artifacts introduced by strided operations in the back-propagation process.
Up-scaled activation maps, on the other hand, can significantly lose details
when displaying the response of filters with large receptive field from deeper layers.
Moreover, they have the weakness of only being computable for convolutional layers.
In order to alleviate these issues, we start from the hypothesis proven by \cite{netdissect2017,YosinskiDeepVis15}, that \tinne{only} a small subset of the internal filters
of a network encode features that are important for the task that the network addresses.
Based on that assumption, we propose a method which, given a trained
\DNN ~model, automatically identifies a set of relevant internal filters whose encoded
features serve as indicators for the class of interest to be predicted~(Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}\, left).
These filters can originate from any type of internal layer of the network, i.e.,~\textit{convolutional,
fully connected}, etc. \tinne{Selecting them} is formulated as a \textit{$\mu$-lasso} optimization problem in
which a sparse set of filter-wise responses are linearly combined in order to predict the
class of interest. At test time,
\tinne{we move from interpretation to explanation}.
Given an image, a set of identified relevant filters,
and a class prediction, we accompany the predicted class label with heatmap visualizations
of the top-responding relevant filters for the predicted class, see Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}\,(center).
In addition, by improving the resampling operations within deconvnet-based methods,
we are able to address the artifacts introduced in the back-propagation process, see Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}\,(right).
The code and models used to generate our visual explanations can be found in the following link~\footnote{\scriptsize{\url{http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~joramas/projects/visualExplanationByInterpretation}}}.
Overall, the proposed method removes the requirement of additional expensive
pixel-wise annotation, by relying on the same annotations used to train the initial model.
Moreover, by using our own variant of a deconvolution-based method, our method is able to
consider the spatial response from any filter at any layer while still providing visually
pleasant feedback. This allows our method to reach some level of explanation by interpretation.
Finally, recent approaches to evaluate explanation methods
measure the validity of an explanation either via user studies~(\cite{ZeilerDeconv14,SelvarajuDVCPB16})
or by measuring its effect on a proxy task, e.g. object detection/segmentation~(\cite{Zhou15Parts,zhang2016EB}).
While user studies inherently add subjectivity, benchmarking through a proxy task steers the optimization
of the explanation method towards such task.
Here we propose an objective evaluation via \textit{\aniFlower}, a synthetic
dataset where the discriminative feature between the classes of interest
is controlled.
This allows us to produce ground-truth masks for the regions
to be highlighted by the explanation. Furthermore, it allows us to
quantitatively measure the performance of methods for model explanation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{imgs/teaser_group_ICLR19_teaser-crop-compress.pdf}\\
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{ \small Left: Proposed training/testing pipeline.
Center: Visual explanations generated by our method.
Predicted class labels are enriched with heatmaps indicating
the pixel locations, associated to the features, that contributed to
the prediction.
Note these features may come from the object itself as well as from
the context.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded (green for convolutional and pink for fully connected).
Right: Visualization comparison. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. At the same time, our method
is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than up-scaled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:teaser}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{figure}
The main contributions of this work are four-fold.
First, we propose an automatic method based on feature selection
to identify the network-encoded features that are important for the
prediction of a given class. This alleviates the requirement of exhaustive
manual inspection or additional expensive pixel-wise annotations required by
existing methods.
Second, the proposed method is able to provide visual feedback with higher-level
of detail over up-scaled raw activation maps and improved quality over recent deconvolution+guided
back-propagation methods. Third, the proposed method is general enough to be applied to any type of network,
independently of the type of layers that compose it.
Fourth, we release a dataset and protocol specifically
designed for the evaluation of methods for model explanation.
To the best of our knowledge this is the first dataset aimed at such task.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:relatedWork}
we position our work w.r.t. existing work. Sec.~\ref{sec:proposedMethod}
presents the pipeline and inner-workings of the proposed method.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:evaluation}, we conduct a series of experiments
evaluating different aspects of the proposed method.
We draw conclusions in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:relatedWork}
\textbf{Interpretation.}
\cite{ZeilerDeconv14,Zhou15Parts} proposed to visualize properties
of the function modelled by a network by systematically covering
(part of) the input image and measuring the difference of activations.
The assumption is that occlusion of important parts of the
input will lead to a significant drop in performance.
This procedure is applied at test time to identify the
regions of the image that are important for classification.
However, the resolution of the explanation will depend on the region
size.
Another group of works focuses on linking internal activations
with semantic concepts. \cite{escorciaCVPR15} proposed a feature selection
method in which the neuron activations of a \DNN ~trained with object
categories are combined to predict object attributes.
Similarly, \cite{netdissect2017,fong18net2vec,ZhangInterCNN17}
proposed to exhaustively
match the activations of every filter from the convolutional layers
against a dataset with pixel-wise annotated concepts.
While both methods provide important insights on the semantic concepts
encoded by the network, they are both limited by the concepts
for which annotation is available.
Similar to \cite{escorciaCVPR15}, we discover relevant internal
filters through a feature selection method. Different from it,
we link internal activations directly to the same annotations
used to train the initial model. This removes the expensive
requirement of additional annotations.
A third line of works aims at discovering frequent visual
patterns~(\cite{doersch2015makes, RematasCVPR15})
occurring in image collections.
These patterns have a high semantic coverage which makes
them effective as means for summarization.
We adopt the idea of using visualizations of (internal) mid-level
elements as means to reveal the relevant features encoded, internally,
by a \DNN. More precisely, we use the average visualizations used by these
works in order to interpret, visually, what the network has actually learned.
\textbf{Explanation.}
For the sake of brevity, we ignore methods which generate explanations via bounding boxes~(\cite{KarpathyVisualAligments15,oramasVisualComp16}) or
text~(\cite{HendricksImageDescr16}), and focus on methods capable of generating
visualizations with pixel-level precision.
\cite{ZeilerDeconv14} proposed a deconvolutional network~(Deconvnet) which uses activations from a given top layer and reverses the forward pass to reveal which visual patterns from the input image are responsible for the observed activations. \cite{Simonyan14} used information from the lower layers and the input image to estimate which image regions are responsible for the activations seen at the top layers.
Similarly, \cite{bachLRP15} decomposed the classification decision into
pixel-wise contributions while preserving the propagated quantities
between adjacent layers.
Later, \cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15} extended these works by
introducing ``guided back-propagation'', a technique that removes the effect of units with negative contributions
in forward and backward pass. This resulted in sharper heatmap visualizations.
\cite{zhou2015cnnlocalization} propose Global Average Pooling, i.e.,
a weighted sum over the spatial locations of the activations of the filters of the last convolutional layer, which results in a class activation map. Finally, a heatmap is generated by upsampling the class activation map to the size of the input image.
\cite{SelvarajuDVCPB16} extended this by providing a more efficient way for computing the weights for the activation maps. Recently, \cite{ChattopadhyayGCPP} extended this with neuron specific weights with the goal of improving object localization on the generated visualizations.
Here, we take DeconvNet with guided-backpropagation as starting point given its
maturity and ability to produce visual feedback with pixel-level precision. However, we change the internal operations in the backward pass with the goal of reducing
visual artifacts introduced by strided operations while maintaining the network structure.
\textbf{Benchmarking.}
\cite{zhou2015cnnlocalization,zhang2016EB} proposed a saliency-based evaluation
where explanations are assessed based on how well they highlight complete instances of the classes of
interest. Thus, treating model explanation as a weakly-supervised object detection/segmentation problem.
This saliency-based protocol assumes that explanations are exclusive to intrinsic object features,
e.g. color, shape, parts, etc. and completely ignores extrinsic features, e.g. scene, environment,
related to the depicted context.
\cite{ZeilerDeconv14,SelvarajuDVCPB16} proposed a protocol
based on crowd-sourced user studies. These type of evaluations are not only characterized
by their high-cost, but also suffer from subjective bias (\cite{GonzalezGarcia2017DoSP}).
Moreover, \cite{vqahat} suggest that deep models and humans do not necessarily attend to
the same input evidence even when they predict the same output.
Here we propose a protocol where the regions to be highlighted by the explanation
are predefined. The goal is to \textit{objectify} the evaluation and relax
the subjectivity introduced by human-based evaluations. Moreover, our protocol
makes no strong assumption regarding the type of features highlighted by the
the explanations.
\section{Proposed Method}
\label{sec:proposedMethod}
The proposed method consists of two parts. At training time, a set of relevant
layer/filter pairs are identified for every class of interest $j$. This results in a relevance weight $w_j$, associated to class $j$, for every
filter-wise response $x$ computed internally by the network.
At test time, an image $I$ is pushed through the network producing the class
prediction {\small $\hat{j} {=} F(I)$}. Then, taking into account the internal responses
$x$, and relevance weights $w_{\hat{j}}$ for the predicted class $\hat{j}$, we generate visualizations indicating the image regions that contributed to this prediction.
\subsection{Identifying Relevant Features}
\label{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}
One of the strengths of deep models is
their ability to learn abstract concepts from simpler ones.
That is, when an example is pushed into the model, a conclusion
concerning a specific task can be reached as a function of the
results (activations) of intermediate operations at different
levels (layers) of the model.
These intermediate results may hint at the ``semantic'' concepts
that the model is taking into account when making a decision.
From this observation,
and the fact that activations are typically sparse,
we make the assumption that some
of the internal filters of a network encode features that are
important for the task that the network addresses.
To this end, we follow a procedure similar to \cite{escorciaCVPR15},
aiming to predict each class $j$ by the linear combination {\small$w_j{\in} \mathbb{R}^m$} of its internal activations $x$, with $m$ the total number of neurons/activations.
As an initial step, we extract the image-wise response $x_i$.
To this end, we compute the $L_2$ norm of each channel (filter response) within
each layer and produce a 1-dimensional descriptor by concatenating
the responses from the different channels. This layer-specific descriptor is
$L_1$-normalized in order to compensate for the difference in
length among different layers. Finally,
we concatenate all the layer-specific descriptors
to obtain $x_i$.
In this process, we do not consider the last layer whose output is directly
related to the classes of interest, e.g. the last two layers from \VGG-\F~\cite{Chatfield14}.
Following this procedure, we construct the matrix {\small $X {\in} \mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$}
by passing each of the {\small $N$} training images through
the network {\small $F$} and storing the internal responses $x$.
As such, the {\small $i^{th}$} image of the dataset is
represented by a vector {\small $x_i {\in} \mathbb{R}^m$} defined by the
filter-wise responses at different layers.
Furthermore, the possible classes that the {\small $i^{th}$} image
belongs to are organized in a binary vector {\small $l_i {\in} \{0,1\}^C$}
where $C$ is the total number of classes.
Putting the annotations from all the images together produces the binary
label matrix {\small $L {=} [ l_1, l_2, ..., l_N ]$}, with {\small $L {\in} \mathbb{R}^{C\times N}$}.
With these terms, we resort to solving the equation:
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matrixDecom}
\begin{aligned}
W^{*} &= argmin_W~||X^TW - L^T||^2_F
&~subject~to:~ ||w_j||_1 \leq \mu ~,~ \forall_j=1,...,C \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $\mu$ a parameter that allows controlling the sparsity. This is the matrix form of the $\mu$-lasso problem.
This problem can be efficiently solved using the Spectral
Gradient Projection method~\cite{SPAMSMairal,lassoSPG}.
The $\mu$-lasso formulation is optimal for cases like the ones obtained
by ResNet where the number of internal activations is large compared to
the number of examples.
After solving the $\mu$-lasso problem, we have a
matrix {\small $W{=}[w_1,w_2,...,w_C]$}, with {\small $W {\in} \mathbb{R}^{m \times C}$}.
We impose sparsity on $W$ by enforcing the constraints on
the $L_1$ norm of $w_j$, i.e., $||w_j||_1 {\leq} \mu ~,~ \forall_j=1,...,C $.
As a result, each non-zero element in $W$ represents a
pair of network layer $p$ and filter index $q$ (within the layer)
of relevance.
\subsection{Generating Visual Feedback}
During training time (Section~\ref{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}),
we identified a set of relevant features (indicated by {\small $W$})
for the classes of interest. At test time, we generate the feedback
visualizations by taking into account the response of these
features on the content of the tested images.
Towards this goal, we push an image {\small $I$} through the network producing the class
prediction {\small $\hat{j} {=} F(I)$}. During that pass, we compute the internal
filter-wise response vector $x_i$ following the procedure presented above.
Then we compute the response {\small $r^{\hat{j}}_i {=} (w_{\hat{j}} \circ x_i)$}, where $\circ$ represents the element-wise product between two vectors.
Note that the $w_{\hat{j}}$ vector is highly sparse, therefore adding an insignificant cost at test time.
The features, i.e., layer/filter pairs $(p^\ast,q^\ast)$, with strongest contribution in the
prediction $\hat{j}$ are selected as those with maximum response in $r^{\hat{j}}_i$.
Finally, we feed this information to the Deconvnet-based method with
guided backpropagation from \cite{gruen16} to visualize the important
features as defined by the layer/filter pairs $(p^\ast,q^\ast)$.
Following the visualization method from \cite{gruen16}, given a
filter $p$ from layer $q$ and an input image, we first push forward
the input image through the network, storing the activations from
each filter at each layer, until reaching the layer $p$.
Then, we backpropagate the activations from filter $q$ at layer $p$
with inverse operations until reaching back to the input image space.
As result we get as part of the output a set of heatmaps, associated
to the relevant features, defined by {\small $(p^\ast,q^\ast)$}, indicating
the influence of the pixels that contributed to the prediction.
See Fig.\ref{fig:teaser}\,(left) for an example of the visual feedback
provided by our method.
Please refer to \cite{gruen16,SpringenbergGuidedBack15,ZeilerDeconv14}
for further details regarding Deconvnet-based and Guided backpropagation methods.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.60\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{imgs/fig_visualQuality_heatmapCompare_2-crop.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Heatmap visualization at lower layers of \VGG-\F.
Note how our method attenuates the grid-like artifacts introduced
by existing DeconvNet+GB methods~(\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}).
}
\label{fig:visualQuality}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.37\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{imgs/fig_visualQuality_ourDeconvnetBGPass-crop.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small To attenuate artifacts
, during the backward pass, we set the stride to 1 ($S=1$) and compensate
by resampling the input so that $A_d'=B|_{S=1}$.
}
\label{fig:ourDeconvMethod}
\end{minipage}\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Improving Visual Feedback Quality}
\label{sec:improvingVisualFeedback}
Deep neural networks addressing computer vision tasks
commonly push the input visual data through a sequence of operations.
A common trend of this sequential processing is that the input data is
internally resampled until reaching the desired prediction space.
As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:relatedWork}, methods aiming at
interpretation/explanation start from an internal point in the network
and go backwards until reaching the input space - producing a heatmap.
However, due to the resampling process, heatmaps generated by the
backwards process tend to display grid-like artifacts.
More precisely, we find that this grid effect is caused by the internal
resampling introduced by network operations with stride larger than one
({\footnotesize $S{>}1$}).
To alleviate this effect, in the backwards pass, we set the stride
{\footnotesize $S{=}1$} and compensate for this change by modifying the input accordingly.
As a result, the backwards process can be executed while maintaining
the network structure.
More formally, given a network operation block defined by a convolution
mask with size {\footnotesize $[M {\times} M]$}, stride {\footnotesize $[S,S]$}, and padding {\footnotesize $ [O,O,O,O]$},
the relationship between the size of its input {\footnotesize $[A {\times} A]$} and its output
{\footnotesize $[B {\times} B]$} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ourDeconvMethod}) is characterized
by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
A + 2 \cdot O = M + (B - 1) \cdot S
\label{eq:inputImgSize}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{equation}
from where,
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
B = [~(A + 2 \cdot O - M)/S~] + 1
\label{eq:feaMapSize}
\end{equation}
Our method starts from the input~({\footnotesize $[A_d {\times} A_d]$}), which encodes the contributions from the input image, carried by the higher layer in the Deconvnet backward pass.
In order to enforce a ``cleaner'' resampling when {\footnotesize $S{>}1$}, during the backward pass, the size of the input~({\footnotesize $[A_d {\times} A_d]$}) of the operation block should be the same as that of the feature map ({\footnotesize $[B {\times} B]$}) produced by the forward pass
if the stride {\footnotesize $S$} were equal to one, i.e., {\footnotesize $A'_d {=} B|_{S{=}1}$}.
According to Eq.~\ref{eq:feaMapSize} with {\footnotesize $\footnotesize S{=}1$}, {\footnotesize $A_d$}
should therefore be resampled to {\footnotesize $ A'_d {=} B|_{S{=}1} {=} A {+} 2 \cdot O {-} M {+} 1 $}.
We do this resampling via the nearest-neighbor interpolation algorithm given its
proven fast computation time which makes it optimal for real-time processing.
By introducing this step, the network will perform the backwards pass \jose{at every layer}
with stride {\footnotesize $S{=}1$} and the grid effect will disappear.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:visualQuality} for some examples of the
improvements introduced by our method.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
We conduct four sets of experiments.
First, in Sec.~\ref{sec:importanceRelFeat}, we verify the
importance of the identified relevant features in the task addressed by the
network.
Then, in Sec.~\ref{sec:visualFeedbackQuality}, we
evaluate the improvements on visual quality provided by our method.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:visualExplanationBenchmark},
we quantify the capability of our visual explanations to highlight the regions
that are descriptive for the classes of interest.
Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:sanityCheck}, we assess the sensitivity
of the proposed method w.r.t. the predicted classes.
We evaluate the proposed method on an image recognition task.
We conduct experiments on three standard image recognition
datasets, i.e., \MNIST~\cite{lecunMNIST10}, \Fashion144k~\cite{SimoSerra15}
and \imageNet~(\ILSVRC'12)~\cite{ILSVRC15}.
Additionally, we conduct experiments on a subset of cat images from
\imageNet ~(\imageNet-cats).
\MNIST ~covers 10 classes of hand-written digits. It is
composed by 70k images in total~(60k for training/validation, 10k for testing).
The \imageNet ~dataset is composed of 1k classes. Following the standard practice,
we measure performance on its validation set. Each class contains 50 validation
images.
For the \Fashion144k ~dataset~\cite{SimoSerra15}, we consider the subset of 12k images
from \cite{wangGeo17} used for the geolocation of 12 city classes.
The \imageNet-cats subset consists of 13 cat classes, containing both
domestic and wild cats. It is composed of 17,550 images. Each class contains 1,3k
images for training and 50 images for testing.
Please refer to the supplementary material for more implementation details.
\begin{figure*}[!tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{imgs/feature-remove-exp_2.png}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{\small Changes in mean classification accuracy (mCA) as the identified relevant filters are ablated.}
\label{fig:ablationExp}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Importance of Identified Relevant Features}
\label{sec:importanceRelFeat}
In this experiment, we verify the importance of the ``relevant'' features
identified by our method at training time~(Sec.~\ref{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}).
To this end, given a set of identified features, we evaluate the influence they
have in the network by measuring changes in classification performance caused
by their removal. We remove features in the network by setting their
corresponding layer/filter to zero. The expected behavior is that a set of
features with high relevance will produce a stronger drop in performance
when ablated.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ablationExp}, shows the changes in classification
performance for the tested datasets. We report the performance of four
sets of features: a)~\textit{All}, selected with our method by considering the whole
internal network architecture, b)~\textit{OnlyConv}, selected by considering
only the convolutional layers of the network, c) a ~\textit{Random}
selection of features~(filters) selected from the layers indicated in
the sets a) and b), and for reference, d) the performance obtained
by the original network.
Note that the \textit{OnlyConv} method makes the assumption
that relevant features are only present in the convolutional layers.
This is a similar assumption as the one made by state-of-the-art methods \cite{netdissect2017,XieNIPS17,zhou2015cnnlocalization}.
When performing feature selection (Sec.\ref{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}), we set the sparsity parameter {\small$\mu{=}10$} for all the tested datasets.
This produces subsets of {\small 92$\mid$101}, {\small 46$\mid$28}, {\small 104$\mid$111}, {\small 248$\mid$180} relevant features for the \textit{All$\mid$OnlyConv} methods, on the respective datasets
from Fig.~\ref{fig:ablationExp}.
Differences in the number of the selected features can be attributed
to possibly redundant or missing predictive information between the initial pools
of filter responses $x$ used to select the \textit{All} and \textit{OnlyConv}
features.
A quick inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig:ablationExp} shows that indeed classification
performance drops when we remove the identified features, \textit{All} and
\textit{OnlyConv}. Moreover, it is noticeable that a random removal of
features has a lower effect on classification accuracy.
This demonstrates the relevance of the identified features for the
classes of interest.
In addition, it is visible that the method that considers the complete
internal structure, i.e., \textit{All}, suffers a stronger drop in
performance compared to the \textit{OnlyConv} which only considers features
produced by the convolutional layers. This suggests that there is indeed
important information encoded in the fully connected layers, and while
convolutional layers are a good source for features, focusing on them only
does not reveal the full story.
\jose{
Regarding the effect of the sparsity value $\mu$ in the $\mu$-lasso
formulation (Sec.~\ref{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}),
we note that increasing $\mu$ increases the number of selected features. This leads to more specialized
features that can
better cope with
rare instances of the classes
of interest. We decided to start from a relatively low value, e.g. $\mu{=}10$,
in order to focus on a small set of relevant features that can generalize to
the classes of interest while, at the same time, keeping the computational cost low.
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{imgs/ave_image_pyramid-crop.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Average Images from the identified relevant filters for the ImageNet-Cats subset~(top), some selected classes from the full ImageNet~(left) and the \Fashion144K~(left) datasets, respectively.}
\label{fig:avgImages}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{imgs/explan_group-crop_compress.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Our visual explanations.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
These features may come from the object itself as well as
from its context.
See how for \MNIST, some features support the
existence of gaps, as to avoid confusion with another class.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).}
\label{fig:visualExplanationImages}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Qualitative Analysis.}
In order to get a qualitative insight into the type of information
that these features encode we compute an average visualization
by considering the top 100 image patches where such features have a high response.
Towards this goal, given the set of identified relevant features, for
every class, we select images with higher responses. Then, we
take the input image at the location with maximum response for a
given filter and crop it by considering the receptive field of the corresponding
layer/filter of interest.
Selected examples of average images, with rich semantic representation,
are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:avgImages} for the tested datasets.
We can notice that for imageNet-Cats, the identified features cover
descriptive characteristics of the considered cat classes. For example,
the dark head of a Siamese cat, the nose/mouth of a
cougar, or the fluffy-white body shape of Persian cat.
Likewise, it effectively identifies the descriptive fur patterns from
the jaguar, leopard and tiger classes and colors which are related to the background.
We see a similar effect on a selection of other objects from the rest of
the imageNet dataset.
For instance, for scene-type classes, i.e., coast, castle and church, the
identified features focus on the outline of such scenes.
Similarly, we notice different viewpoints for animal-type classes, e.g.~golden-retriever, hen, robin, magpie.
On the \Fashion144k dataset (Fig.~\ref{fig:avgImages}\,(right))
we can notice that some classes respond to features related to
green, blue, red, and beige colors.
Some focus on legs, covered and uncovered, while others focus
on the upped body part. It is interesting that from the upper
body parts, some focus on persons with dark long hair, short hair,
and light hair. Similarly, there is a class with high response to
horizontal black-white gradients where individuals tend to dress
in dark clothes.
These visualizations answer the question explored in
\cite{wangGeo17} and why the computer outperforms the surveyed
participants. It shows that the model effectively exploits
human-related features (legs clothing, hair length/color, clothing color)
as well as background-related features, mainly covered by
color/gradients and texture patterns.
In the visual explanations provided by our method
we can see that the model effectively
uses this type of features to reach its decision.
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:visualExplanationImages} we show some examples
of the visual explanations produced by our method.
We aggregate the predicted class label with our heatmap visualizations
indicating the pixel locations, associated to the relevant features,
that contributed to the prediction.
For the case of the \ILSVRC'12 and \Fashion144k examples, we notice that the relevant
features come from the object itself as well as from its context.
For the case of the \MNIST~examples, in addition to the features firing
on the object, there are features that support the existence of a gap
(background), as to emphasize that the object is not filled there and
avoid confusion with another class.
For example, see for class $2$ how it speaks against $0$ and for $6$ how it goes against $4$.
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Visual Feedback Quality}
\label{sec:visualFeedbackQuality}
\vspace{-2mm}
In this section, we assess the visual quality of the
visual explanations generated by our method.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:visualQualityExp}, we compare
our visualizations with upsampled activation maps from
internal layers~(\cite{netdissect2017,zhou2015cnnlocalization})
and the output of DeconvNet with guided-backpropagation~(\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}).
We show these visualizations for different layers/filters
throughout the network.
A quick inspection reveals that our method to attenuate the grid-like
artifacts introduced by Deconvnet methods (see Sec~\ref{sec:improvingVisualFeedback}) indeed produces noticeable improvements for lower layers.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:visualQuality} for additional examples presenting this
difference at lower layers.
Likewise, for the case of higher layers~(Fig.~\ref{fig:visualQualityExp}),
the proposed method provides more precise visualizations when compared
to upsampled activation maps.
In fact, the rough output produced by the activation maps at higher
layers has a saliency-like behavior that gives the impression that the
network is focusing on a larger region of the image. This could be a
possible attribution to why in earlier works \cite{Zhou15Parts},
manual inspection of network activations suggested that the network
was focusing on ``semantic'' parts.
Please see~\cite{GonzalezGarcia2017DoSP} for an in-depth discussion
of this observation.
Finally, for the case of FC layers, using upsampled activation maps
is not applicable.
\noindent Please refer to the supplementary material for additional examples.
In addition, to quantitatively measure the quality of our heatmaps we perform
a box-occlusion study~\cite{ZeilerDeconv14}. Given a specific heatmap, we
occlude the original image with patches sampled from the distribution defined
by the heatmap. We measure changes in performance as we gradually increase the
number of patches up to covering the 30\% most relevant part of the image.
Here our method reaches a mean difference in prediction confidence of 2\% w.r.t. to
\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}. This suggests that our method is able to maintain
focus on relevant class features while producing detailed heatmaps with better visual
quality.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.7\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{imgs/cat_visual_group_23_noCite-crop-compress.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Pixel effect visualization for different methods. Note
how for lower layers (8/21), our method attenuates the grid-like artifacts
introduced by Deconvnet methods. For higher layers (15/21),
our method provides a more precise visualization when compared to
upsampled activation maps. For the case of FC layers (20/21), using upsampled activation maps is not applicable.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityExp}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.29\linewidth}
\resizebox{0.98\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Method & \textbf{single-6c} \\
\midrule
Upsam. Act. & 16.8$\pm$2.63 \\
Deconv+GB,~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15} & 21.3$\pm$0.77 \\
Grad-CAM,~\cite{vqahat} & 17.5$\pm$0.25 \\
Guided Grad-CAM,~\cite{vqahat} & 19.9$\pm$0.61 \\
Grad-CAM++,~\cite{ChattopadhyayGCPP} & 15.6$\pm$0.57 \\
Guided Grad-CAM++,~\cite{ChattopadhyayGCPP} & 19.6$\pm$0.65 \\
\textbf{\textit{Ours}} & \textbf{22.5$\pm$0.82} \\
\midrule
Method & \textbf{double-12c} \\
\midrule
Upsam. Act. & 16.1$\pm$1.30 \\
Deconv+GB,~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15} & 21.9$\pm$0.72 \\
Grad-CAM,~\cite{vqahat} & 14.8$\pm$0.16 \\
Guided Grad-CAM,~\cite{vqahat} & 19.4$\pm$0.34 \\
Grad-CAM++,~\cite{ChattopadhyayGCPP} & 14.6$\pm$0.12 \\
Guided Grad-CAM++,~\cite{ChattopadhyayGCPP} & 19.7$\pm$0.27 \\
\textbf{\textit{Ours}} & \textbf{23.2$\pm$0.60} \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:synExpAUC}
}
\caption*{\small Table 1: Area under the IoU curve (in percentages) on an8Flower over \textit{5-folds}.}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Measuring Visual Explanation Accuracy}
\label{sec:visualExplanationBenchmark}
We generate two synthetic datasets, \textit{an8Flower-single-6c} and \textit{an8Flower-double-12c},
with 6 and 12 classes respectively.
In the former, a fixed single part of the object is allowed to change color.
This color defines the classes of interest. In the latter, a combination of
color and the part on which it is located defines the discriminative feature.
After defining these features, we generate masks that overlap
with the discriminative regions (Fig.~\ref{fig:syntheticExp}\,(left)).
Then, we threshold the heatmaps at given values and measure the pixel-level
intersection over union (IoU) of a model explanation (produced by the method
to be evaluated) w.r.t. these masks.
We test a similar model as for the \MNIST ~dataset (Sec.~\ref{sec:importanceRelFeat})
trained on each variant of the \textit{an8Flower} dataset.
In Table 1 we report 5-fold cross-validation performance of the proposed
feature selection method using three different means
(Upsamp. Act. Maps, Deconv+GB~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}
and ours heatmap variant) and other state-of-the-art methods
to generate visual explanations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{imgs/an8flower-crop.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Left: Examples and GT-masks from the proposed \textit{an8FLower} dataset. Center: Comparison of generated visual explanations. Right: Examples of the generated visual interpretations.}
\label{fig:syntheticExp}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
We can notice in Fig.~\ref{fig:syntheticExp}\,(right) that our
method effectively identifies the pre-defined discriminative regions regardless
of whether they are related to color and/or shape.
Likewise, Fig.~\ref{fig:syntheticExp}\,(center) shows that
our explanations accurately highlight these features
and that they have a better balance between
level of detail and coverage than those produced by existing methods.
The quantitative results (Table~1) show that our method has a higher
mean IoU of the discriminative features when compared to existing methods.
\jose{
However, it should be noted that, different from the compared methods,
our method involves an additional process, i.e., feature selection via $\mu$-lasso,
at training time. Moreover, for this process an additional parameter, i.e $\mu$,
should be defined (Sec.~\ref{sec:identifyRelevanFeatures}).
}
Please refer to the supplementary material for more details and visualizations.
\jose{
Methods for model explanation/interpretation aim at providing users with insights
on what a model has learned and why it makes specific predictions. Putting this together with the observations made in our experiments, there are two points that should be noted.
On the one hand, we believe that our objective evaluation should be complemented with simpler
user studies. This should ensure that the produced explanations are meaningful to the individuals they aim to serve.
On the other hand, our proposed evaluation protocol enables objective quantitative comparison of different methods for visual explanation. As such it is free of the weaknesses of exhaustive user studies and of the complexities that can arise when replicating them.
}
\subsection{Checking the Sanity of the Generated Visual Explanations}
\label{sec:sanityCheck}
\vspace{-2mm}
\jose{
Beyond the capability of generating accurate visual explanations,
recent works (\cite{KindermansSanityNIPS17,SanityNIPS2018,NieZP18Sanity})
have stressed the importance of verifying that the generated explanations
are indeed relevant to the model and the classes being explained.
Towards this goal, we run a similar experiment to that conducted in \cite{NieZP18Sanity}
where the visual explanation produced for a \textit{predicted class}
of a given model after observing a given image is compared against those when a
\textit{different class} is considered when generating the explanation.
A good explanation should be sensible to the class, and thus generate different visualizations.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:sanityCheck} we show qualitative results obtained by running this
experiment on our models trained on the \ILSVRC'12~(\cite{ILSVRC15}) and ~\imageNet-cats datasets.
}
\jose{As can be noted in Fig.~\ref{fig:sanityCheck}, the explanation generated for the predicted class, i.e., \textit{'cat'/'tabby'},
focuses on different regions than those generated for randomly selected classes.
This is more remarkable for the case of the \imageNet-cats model, which can be considered
a fine-grained classification task. In this setting, when changing towards a random class, i.e., \textit{'jaguar, panther, Panthera onca, Felis onca'},
the generated explanations only highlight the features that are common between the random class
and the \textit{'tabby'} class depicted in the image.
In their work, \cite{NieZP18Sanity} and \cite{SanityNIPS2018} found that explanations
from DeconvNet and Guided-Backpropagation methods are not performing well in this respect, yielding visualizations that are not determined by the predicted
class, but by the filters of the first layer and the edge-like structures in the
input images. Although our method relies on DeconvNet and Guided-Backpropagation,
our explanations go beyond regions with prominent gradients - see Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}, \ref{fig:visualExplanationImages} \& \ref{fig:syntheticExp}. In fact, in classes where color is a discriminative feature,
uniform regions are highlighted.
This different result can be understood since, in our method, DeconvNet with Guided-Backpropagation is merely used as a means to
highlight the image regions that justify the identified relevant features, not the
predicted classes themselves.
If a better, more robust or principled
visualization method is proposed in the future by the community, we could use that as well.
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{imgs/sanityCheckExp-crop_COMPRESS.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Sensitivity of the proposed method w.r.t. the predicted class.
Note how the generated explanation focuses on different regions of the input image (left) when explaining different classes.
We see a similar trend on explanations generated from the models trained on the \imageNet~(center) and \imageNet-cats (right) datasets.
}
\label{fig:sanityCheck}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
\vspace{-2mm}
We propose a method to enrich the prediction made by
\DNNs~by indicating the visual features that
contributed to such prediction.
Our method identifies features encoded
by the network that are relevant for the task
addressed by the \DNN.
It allows \textit{interpretation} of these features
by the generation of average feature-wise visualizations.
In addition, we proposed a method to attenuate
the artifacts introduced by strided operations in
visualizations made by Deconvnet-based methods.
This empowers our method with richer visual feedback
with pixel-level precision without requiring additional
annotations for supervision.
Finally, we have proposed a novel dataset designed
for the objective evaluation of methods for explanation of \DNNs.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments} This work was supported by the \small{FWO SBO} project Omnidrone,
the \small{VLAIO} R\&D-project \small{SPOTT}
, the KU Leuven \small{PDM} Grant \small{PDM/16/131},
and a \small{NVIDIA GPU} grant.
\small
\bibliographystyle{iclr2019_conference}
\bibliography{iclr2019_conference}
\newpage
\section{Supplementary Material}
This section constitutes supplementary material.
As such, this document is organized in six parts.
In Section~\ref{sec:implementDetails}, we provide implementation
details of the proposed method and experiments presented in
the original manuscript.
In Section~\ref{sec:relevantFeatures}, we provide a further
quantitative analysis on the importance of the identified
relevant features.
In Section~\ref{sec:AD}, we provide additional
details regarding the generation of \textit{an8Flower}, a
dataset specially designed for evaluating methods for visual
explanation.
In Section~\ref{sec:visualInterpretation},
we provide extended examples on the average images used
for interpretation.
Similarly, in Section~\ref{sec:visualExplanation},
we provide additional examples of visual explanations
provided by our method.
Finally, we concluded this document
in Section~\ref{sec:qualityComparison} by performing
a qualitative comparison in order to display the advantages
of the proposed method over existing work.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{sec:implementDetails}
We use in our experiments the pre-trained models provided as part
of the MatconvNet framework~\cite{MatConvNet} for both the \MNIST
and ImageNet datasets. For the \Fashion144k dataset we use the \VGG-\F-based
model (\textit{Finetunned with image-based pooling}) released by the authors
from \cite{wangGeo17}.
For \MNIST, we employ a network composed by 8 layers in total,
five of them are convolutional , two are fully connected.
The last one is a softmax layer.
For the full \imageNet set, we employ a \VGG-\F~\cite{Chatfield14} model
which is composed of 21 layers, from these 15 are convolutional followed
by five fully connected. The last one is a softmax layer.
Finally, for the case of the \imageNet-Cats subset
we finetune the \VGG-\F model trained on the full \imageNet set.
\subsection{Importance of the Identified Features}
\label{sec:relevantFeatures}
In order to verify the relevance of the identified
features, i.e., how well the features encode information
from the classes of interest, we measure the level to
which they are able to "reconstruct" each of the
classes of interest.
Towards this goal, we compute the mean area under
the ROC curve (mean-AUC) for all the classes of interest
in a given dataset.
In Figure~\ref{fig:classReconstruction}, we report
performance over different $\mu$ values.
It can be noted that already with a low amount of selected
features, i.e.. a low value of $\mu$, we can already encode,
properly, visual characteristics of the classes of interest.
This shows that the identified features hold strong potential
as visual means for explanation.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{images/fig_relevantFeatures_classReconstruction.png}
\caption{
Classification based on the identified relevant
features.
We present the mean area under the ROC curve (mean-AUC)
for all the classes of interest in a given dataset.
Note that only a small amount of features, i.e., low $\mu$,
is required to produce a good reconstruction.
}
\label{fig:classReconstruction}
\end{figure}
\subsection{an8Flower Dataset}
\label{sec:AD}
We release an8Flower, a dataset and evaluation protocol specifically designed for evaluating the performance of methods for model explanation.
We generate this dataset by taking as starting point the eggplant model~\footnote{http://www.anim8or.com/learn/tutorials/eggplant/index.html} publicly released with the Anim8or~\footnote{http://www.anim8or.com/} 3D modeling software. Then, we introduce into this model the discriminative features to define each of the classes of interest. For each class of interest, we rotate the object 360 degrees and render/save 40 frames at different viewpoints with a size of 300x300 pixels.
Afterwards, in order to increase variation and the amount of data, we apply the following data augmentation procedure on each image frame. For each of the original 300x300 rendered frames, we crop each image five times at four corners and center respectively with the size of 250x250. Then, each cropped image is rotated five angles: 5,~10,~15,~20 and 25 degrees. In the end, the data augmentation produces a total of 1000 example images per class.
Figure~\ref{fig:AD_examples} shows rendered images of the classes of interest considered in three variants of this dataset, i.e., \textit{an8Flower-single-6c}, \textit{an8Flower-double-12c} and \textit{an8Flower-part-2c}.
Figure~\ref{fig:AD_dataArg_part} and Figure ~\ref{fig:AD_dataArg_color} displays some examples of the augmented data used in training/testing and its corresponding mask.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/supp_image_examples-crop.pdf}
\caption{
Rendered images from three variant of the proposed \textbf{an8Flower} dataset. \textit{an8Flower-single-6c}
contains six different flower colors, \textit{an8Flower-double-12c} has six more
classes, the same six colors but focused on the stem part. \textit{an8Flower-part-2c} consists of two
classes defined by the occurrence of balls on the flower or thorns on the stem part.
}
\label{fig:AD_examples}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/supp_image_arg_parts-crop.pdf}
\caption{
Random selection of examples from the \textit{an8Flower-part-2c} with their corresponding ground-truth masks.
}
\label{fig:AD_dataArg_part}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/supp_image_arg-crop.pdf}
\caption{
Random selection of examples from the \textit{an8Flower-single-6c} and \textit{an8Flower-double-12c} with their corresponding ground-truth masks
}
\label{fig:AD_dataArg_color}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Visual Interpretation}
\label{sec:visualInterpretation}
In this section, we provide extended examples
of the average images used by our method as
means for visual interpretation
\textit{(Section \ref{sec:importanceRelFeat} of the original manuscript)}.
Moreover, we provide a visual comparison with their
counterparts generated by existing methods.
More precisely, up-scaled activations maps
from convolutional layers~\cite{netdissect2017,Zhou15Parts}
and heatmaps generated from deconvnets with
guided backpropagation~\cite{gruen16,SpringenbergGuidedBack15,ZeilerDeconv14}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:avgImg144Cats}, we show
average images for the imageNet-Cats~\cite{ILSVRC15}
subset, and the Fashion144k~\cite{SimoSerra15}
datasets, respectively.
For each class on each dataset, we show the
average image of each identified feature sorted,
from top to bottom, based on their relevance for
its corresponding class.
In a similar fashion, in Figure~\ref{fig:imageNetAvgImg},
we show a visualization for the displayed
subset of classes \textit{(Figure 5 (center) in
the original manuscript)} from the imageNet dataset.
Given that for the imageNet dataset most of the
identified features come from fully connected (FC)
layers, no up-scaled response map visualization is
possible for them.
Therefore, we opted not to display average
visualizations based on up-scaled activation maps.
Finally, in Figure~\ref{fig:imageNetAvgImgMix}, we show
average visualizations for additional classes from
imageNet.
In Figure~\ref{fig:avgImg144Cats} we can notice
that already within few top relevant
features per class, semantic concepts start to
appear.
In addition, we see the same trends observed
in the original paper. On the one hand, some
features encode class-specific properties,
e.g. nose shape, fur pattern, for the case of
the imageNet-Cats, or hair color/length, leg
dressing, or clothing color for the case of
Fashion 144k.
On the other hand, some features encode
properties related to the background/context
in which the images are captured, e.g. wall/road
colors, vegetation, etc.
We can notice that for the case of up-sampled
activation maps, there are identified features
which originate in Fully Connected Layers (FC).
For this type of layer, the up-scaling process
is not applicable.
When comparing the average visualizations
generated by the different methods, it is
noticeable that the proposed method produces
sharper visualizations than those generated from
up-scaled activation maps.
Moreover, our visualizations are still sharper
than those produced by state-of-the-art
deconvnet-based methods with
guided-backpropagation~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}.
Therefore, enhancing the interpretation capabilities
of the proposed method.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/AVE_144k_cats_suppM-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Interpretation} (Average) visualizations for the identified relevant features for the \textbf{imageNet-Cats}~\cite{ILSVRC15} and a subset of the \textbf{Fashion144k}~\cite{SimoSerra15} dataset. For each class on each dataset, average features are sorted by decreasing relevance in the class they encode.
Average images are generated by either considering: up-scaled activation maps, heatmaps from methods based on deconvnet with guided-backpropagation (deconv+GB)~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}, or our method.
}
\label{fig:avgImg144Cats}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{-6mm}\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{images/AVE_imageNet_suppM-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Interpretation} (Average) visualizations for the identified relevant features for a subset of classes from the \textbf{imageNet}~\cite{ILSVRC15} dataset.
Average images are generated by either considering heatmaps from methods based on deconvnet with guided-backpropagation (deconv+GB)~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15} (left) and our method (right).
}
\label{fig:imageNetAvgImg}
\hspace*{-6mm}\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{images/imageNet_clear_mix.jpg}
\caption{
\textbf{Interpretation} (Average) visualizations produced by our method for the identified relevant features for the \textbf{imageNet}~\cite{ILSVRC15} dataset.
}
\label{fig:imageNetAvgImgMix}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Visual Explanation}
\label{sec:visualExplanation}
In Figures~\ref{fig:visualExplanationMNIST}, \ref{fig:visualExplanationImageNetCats}, \ref{fig:visualExplanationFashion144k}, \ref{fig:AD_dataArg_color}, \ref{fig:AD_dataArg_part}
we extend the visual explanation results presented in the original manuscript.
\textit{(Figures 1, 6, 7 and 9 in the original manuscript)}
In the visual explanations generated by our method
we accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated
to the features, that contributed to the prediction.
In line with the original manuscript, on top of each
heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where
the features come from.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_MNIST-crop.pdf}
\caption{ \textbf{Generated visual explanations} from the \textbf{MNIST} dataset.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).
}
\label{fig:visualExplanationMNIST}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_imageNet-Cats-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Generated visual explanations} from the \textbf{imageNet-Cats}~\cite{ILSVRC15} subset.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).}
\label{fig:visualExplanationImageNetCats}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_Fashion144k-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\small \textbf{Generated visual explanations} from the \textbf{Fashion144k} dataset~\cite{SimoSerra15}.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).
}
\label{fig:visualExplanationFashion144k}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_an8FlowerSingleColor-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\small \textbf{Generated visual explanations} from our proposed \textbf{An8Flower-single-6c} dataset.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).
}
\label{fig:visualExplanationAn8SingleColor}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_an8FlowerDoubleColor-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\small \textbf{Generated visual explanations} from our proposed \textbf{An8Flower-double-12c} dataset.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).
}
\label{fig:visualExplanationAn8DoubleColor}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/visualExamplanations_suppMaterial_an8FlowerSinglePart-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\small \textbf{Generated visual explanations} from our proposed \textbf{An8Flower-part-2c} dataset.
We accompany the predicted class label with our
heatmaps indicating the pixel locations, associated to the features,
that contributed to the prediction.
On top of each heatmap we indicate the number of the layer where the features come
from. The layer type is color-coded, i.e., convolutional (green) and fully connected (pink).
}
\label{fig:visualExplanationAn8SinglePart}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Visual Quality Comparison}
\label{sec:qualityComparison}
We conclude this document by providing extended
results related to the visual quality comparison
\textit{(Section~4.2 in the original manuscript)}
of the visualizations generated by our method.
Towards this goal, in Figures~\ref{fig:visualQualityImageNetCats1}-\ref{fig:visualQualityFashion144k3} we compare our visualizations
with upsampled activation maps from internal layers~\cite{netdissect2017,Zhou15Parts} and the
output of deconvnet combined with guided-backpropagation~\cite{SpringenbergGuidedBack15}.
Following the same methodology as in Figure~2 of the
original manuscript, we focus on visualizations at
lower and higher layers of the network, i.e.,
layer-2/21 and layer-15/21, respectively.
For reference, in Figure~\ref{fig:visualQualityAD} we show similar
comparisons from explanations generated from models trained
on the proposed \textit{an8Flower} dataset.
In Figures~\ref{fig:visualQualityImageNetCats1}-\ref{fig:visualQualityFashion144k3} we can corroborate
that our method to attenuate the grid-like artifacts
introduced by deconvnet methods indeed produces noticeable
improvements, for lower layers.
Likewise, for the case of higher layers, the proposed
method provides a more precise visualization when compared
to upsampled activation maps.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/comparison_cats_1-crop_small.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{imageNet-Cats} subset~\cite{ILSVRC15}. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityImageNetCats1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/comparison_cats_2-crop_small.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{imageNet-Cats} subset~\cite{ILSVRC15}. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityImageNetCats2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/comparison_144k_1-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{Fashion114k} dataset~\cite{SimoSerra15}. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityFashion144k1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/comparison_144k_2-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{Fashion114k} dataset~\cite{SimoSerra15}. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityFashion144k2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/comparison_144k_3-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{Fashion114k} dataset~\cite{SimoSerra15}. Note how our heatmaps attenuate the grid-like artifacts introduced by deconvnet-based methods at lower layers. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityFashion144k3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/supp_AD_quality-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Visual quality comparison} for visualizations generated from the \textbf{an8Flower} dataset. The ground truth mask of the first three rows is stem, middle two rows are flowers while the last three rows are balls~(on flower), thorns~(on stem) and both. Note how our heatmaps have a higher coverage and stronger response in the ground truth mask area. Likewise, our method is able to produce a more detailed visual feedback than upsampled activation maps.
}
\label{fig:visualQualityAD}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\end{document}
|