Researchers have observed that Visual Question Answering (VQA) models tend to answer questions by learning statistical biases in the data. For example, their answer to the question "What is the color of the grass?" is usually "Green", whereas a question like "What is the title of the book?" cannot be answered by inferring statistical biases. It is of interest to the community to explicitly discover such biases, both for understanding the behavior of such models, and towards debugging them. Our work address this problem. In a database, we store the words of the question, answer and visual words corresponding to regions of interest in attention maps. By running simple rule mining algorithms on this database, we discover human-interpretable rules which give us unique insight into the behavior of such models. Our results also show examples of unusual behaviors learned by models in attempting VQA tasks.
: The seminal work by @cite_12 suggests that the Machine Learning community does not have a good understanding of what it means to interpret a model. In particular, this work expounds - interpretation of a model's behavior based on some criteria, such as visualizations of gradients @cite_8 or attention maps @cite_16 , the model has been trained. Locally Interpretable Model Agnostic Explanations (LIME), @cite_34 explain a classifier's behavior at a particular point by perturbing the sample and building a linear model using the perturbations and their predictions. A follow up work @cite_24 constructs , which are features such that, in an instance where these features hold, a model's prediction does not change. This work is the most similar prior work to ours, and the authors provide a few results on as well. However, they only assume the existence of a model, and perturb instances of the data, whereas ours assumes the existence of responses to a dataset, but not the model itself. We use standard rule finding algorithms and provide much more detailed results on the problem.
@cite_8 @cite_16 @cite_24 @cite_34 @cite_12
2616247523 2950178297 2282821441 2439568532
We propose a technique for producing "visual explanations" for decisions from a large class of CNN-based models, making them more transparent. Our approach - Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), uses the gradients of any target concept, flowing into the final convolutional layer to produce a coarse localization map highlighting the important regions in the image for predicting the concept. Unlike previous approaches, GradCAM is applicable to a wide variety of CNN model-families: (1) CNNs with fully-connected layers (e.g. VGG), (2) CNNs used for structured outputs (e.g. captioning), (3) CNNs used in tasks with multimodal inputs (e.g. VQA) or reinforcement learning, without any architectural changes or re-training. We combine GradCAM with fine-grained visualizations to create a high-resolution class-discriminative visualization and apply it to off-the-shelf image classification, captioning, and visual question answering (VQA) models, including ResNet-based architectures. In the context of image classification models, our visualizations (a) lend insights into their failure modes (showing that seemingly unreasonable predictions have reasonable explanations), (b) are robust to adversarial images, (c) outperform previous methods on weakly-supervised localization, (d) are more faithful to the underlying model and (e) help achieve generalization by identifying dataset bias. For captioning and VQA, our visualizations show that even non-attention based models can localize inputs. Finally, we conduct human studies to measure if GradCAM explanations help users establish trust in predictions from deep networks and show that GradCAM helps untrained users successfully discern a "stronger" deep network from a "weaker" one. Our code is available at this https URL A demo and a video of the demo can be found at this http URL and youtu.be COjUB9Izk6E. Inspired by recent work in machine translation and object detection, we introduce an attention based model that automatically learns to describe the content of images. We describe how we can train this model in a deterministic manner using standard backpropagation techniques and stochastically by maximizing a variational lower bound. We also show through visualization how the model is able to automatically learn to fix its gaze on salient objects while generating the corresponding words in the output sequence. We validate the use of attention with state-of-the-art performance on three benchmark datasets: Flickr8k, Flickr30k and MS COCO. Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally varound the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted. Supervised machine learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? We want models to be not only good, but interpretable. And yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. Papers provide diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability, and offer myriad notions of what attributes render models interpretable. Despite this ambiguity, many papers proclaim interpretability axiomatically, absent further explanation. In this paper, we seek to refine the discourse on interpretability. First, we examine the motivations underlying interest in interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, we address model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post-hoc explanations as competing notions. Throughout, we discuss the feasibility and desirability of different notions, and question the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not.