Cited by 144Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Interpretable and Fine-Grained Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks

Open access
Wagner, Jörg, Köhler, Jan Mathias, Gindele, Tobias, Hetzel, Leon, Wiedemer, Jakob Thaddäus, Behnke, Sven·2019·2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

To verify and validate networks, it is essential to gain insight into their decisions, limitations as well as possible shortcomings of training data. In this work, we propose a post-hoc, optimization based visual explanation method, which highlights the evidence in the input image for a specific prediction. Our approach is based on a novel technique to defend against adversarial evidence (i.e. faulty evidence due to artefacts) by filtering gradients during optimization. The defense does not depend on human-tuned parameters. It enables explanations which are both fine-grained and preserve the characteristics of images, such as edges and colors. The explanations are interpretable, suited for visualizing detailed evidence and can be tested as they are valid model inputs. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate our approach on a multitude of models and datasets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00931

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. P. Dollár, C. Wojek, B. Schiele, and P. Perona. Pedestrian de- tection: A benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2009. 1
  2. Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 1135-1143, 2015. 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagner, J., Köhler, J. M., Gindele, T., Hetzel, L., Wiedemer, J. T., & Behnke, S.
Affiliations
  • Robert Bosch (United States) (US)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
Venue
2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-06
Pages
9089-9099
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2965595588
Cited by
144
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8
FWCI
8.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
visual explanations, interpretability, convolutional neural networks, post-hoc explanation, gradient filtering, model validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review