A Disentangling Invertible Interpretation Network for Explaining Latent Representations
Open accessAbstract
Neural networks have greatly boosted performance in computer vision by learning powerful representations of input data. The drawback of end-to-end training for maximal overall performance are black-box models whose hidden representations are lacking interpretability: Since distributed coding is optimal for latent layers to improve their robustness, attributing meaning to parts of a hidden feature vector or to individual neurons is hindered. We formulate interpretation as a translation of hidden representations onto semantic concepts that are comprehensible to the user. The mapping between both domains has to be bijective so that semantic modifications in the target domain correctly alter the original representation. The proposed invertible interpretation network can be transparently applied on top of existing architectures with no need to modify or retrain them. Consequently, we translate an original representation to an equivalent yet interpretable one and backwards without affecting the expressiveness and performance of the original. The invertible interpretation network disentangles the hidden representation into separate, semantically meaningful concepts. Moreover, we present an efficient approach to define semantic concepts by only sketching two images and also an unsupervised strategy. Experimental evaluation demonstrates the wide applicability to interpretation of existing classification and image generation networks as well as to semantically guided image manipulation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
FID scores are generally used to evaluate Representation Synthesis explanations generated by GANs.
“FID scores are generally used to evaluate Representation Synthesis explanations generated by GANs [65,231].”
From From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI (2023) · cites this paper as [65]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 72
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2672-2680, 2014. 3
- Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kil- ian Q. Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional net- works. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), Jul 2017. 1
- Sergey Karayev, Matthew Trentacoste, Helen Han, Aseem Agarwala, Trevor Darrell, Aaron Hertzmann, and Holger Winnemoeller. Recognizing image style. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.3715, 2013. 12 · arXiv
- Durk P Kingma and Prafulla Dhariwal. Glow: Generative flow with invertible 1x1 convolutions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10215-10224, 2018. 2, 4, 11
- Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Daan Wier- stra. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In Proceedings of the 31st In- ternational Conference on International Conference on Ma- chine Learning-Volume 32, pages II-1278. JMLR. org, 2014. 3
- Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. why should i trust you?. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining -KDD 16, 2016. 2
- Quanshi Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, and Song-Chun Zhu. In- terpretable convolutional neural networks. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Jun 2018. 2
- Authors
- Esser, P., Rombach, R., & Ommer, B.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- ORCID
- Rombach, Robin
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-06
- Pages
- 9220-9229
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3022235758
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- interpretability, latent representations, disentangled representations, semantic concepts, black-box models, image generation, image classification
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