Do Users Benefit From Interpretable Vision? A User Study, Baseline, And Dataset
Leon Sixt, Martin Schuessler, Oana-Iuliana Popescu, Philipp Weiß, Tim Landgraf
Abstract
A variety of methods exist to explain image classification models. However, whether they provide any benefit to users over simply comparing various inputs and the model's respective predictions remains unclear. We conducted a user study (N=240) to test how such a baseline explanation technique performs against concept-based and counterfactual explanations. To this end, we contribute a synthetic dataset generator capable of biasing individual attributes and quantifying their relevance to the model. In a study, we assess if participants can identify the relevant set of attributes compared to the ground-truth. Our results show that the baseline outperformed concept-based explanations. Counterfactual explanations from an invertible neural network performed similarly as the baseline. Still, they allowed users to identify some attributes more accurately. Our results highlight the importance of measuring how well users can reason about biases of a model, rather than solely relying on technical evaluations or proxy tasks. We open-source our study and dataset so it can serve as a blue-print for future studies. For code see, https://github.com/berleon/do_users_benefit_from_interpretable_vision
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c686ff57-a2cf-40b0-8987-c63206c188e3Cited by top-tier papers7
- What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability MethodsJulien Colin, Thomas Fel, Rémi Cadène, Thomas SerreNeurIPS 2022 · 147 citations
- A Holistic Approach to Unifying Automatic Concept Extraction and Concept Importance EstimationThomas Fel, Victor Boutin, Louis Béthune, Rémi Cadène et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 125 citations
- Sanity Simulations for Saliency MethodsJoon Sik Kim, Gregory Plumb, Ameet TalwalkarICML 2022 · 24 citations
- Unlocking Feature Visualization for Deep Network with MAgnitude Constrained OptimizationThomas Fel, Thibaut Boissin, Victor Boutin, Agustin M. Picard et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 12 citations
- Cross-Modal Redundancy and the Geometry of Vision-Language EmbeddingsGrégoire Dhimoïla, Thomas Fel, Victor Boutin, Agustin M. PicardICLR 2026 · 9 citations
Builds on6
- Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine LearningHarmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana et al.CHI 2020 · 541 citations
- Debugging Tests for Model ExplanationsJulius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Ilaria Liccardi, Been KimNeurIPS 2020 · 209 citations
- Counterfactual Generative NetworksAxel Sauer, Andreas GeigerICLR 2021 · 145 citations
- Invertible Concept-based Explanations for CNN Models with Non-negative Concept Activation VectorsRuihan Zhang, Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Krista A. Ehinger et al.AAAI 2021 · 140 citations
- Explanation by Progressive ExaggerationSumedha Singla, Brian Pollack, Junxiang Chen, Kayhan BatmanghelichICLR 2020 · 116 citations
Related papers
- Grounding Counterfactual Explanation of Image Classifiers to Textual Concept SpaceSiwon Kim, Jinoh Oh, Sungjin Lee, Seunghak Yu et al.CVPR 2023
- OCTET: Object-aware Counterfactual ExplanationsMehdi Zemni, Mickaël Chen, Éloi Zablocki, Hédi Ben-Younes et al.CVPR 2023
- Designing Counterfactual Generators using Deep Model InversionJayaraman J. Thiagarajan, Vivek Sivaraman Narayanaswamy, Deepta Rajan, Jason Liang et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 25 citations
- DISSECT: Disentangled Simultaneous Explanations via Concept TraversalsAsma Ghandeharioun, Been Kim, Chun-Liang Li, Brendan Jou et al.ICLR 2022 · 58 citations
- CoCoX: Generating Conceptual and Counterfactual Explanations via Fault-LinesArjun R. Akula, Shuai Wang, Song-Chun ZhuAAAI 2020 · 102 citations
