Cited by 122Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Toward Transparent AI: A Survey on Interpreting the Inner Structures of Deep Neural Networks

Open access
Räuker, Tilman, Ho, Anson, Casper, Stephen, Hadfield-Menell, Dylan·2023·2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML)

Abstract

The last decade of machine learning has seen drastic increases in scale and capabilities. Deep neural networks (DNNs) are increasingly being deployed in the real world. However, they are difficult to analyze, raising concerns about using them without a rigorous understanding of how they function. Effective tools for interpreting them will be important for building more trustworthy AI by helping to identify problems, fix bugs, and improve basic understanding. In particular, “inner” interpretability techniques, which focus on explaining the internal components of DNNs, are well-suited for developing a mechanistic understanding, guiding manual modifications, and reverse engineering solutions. Much recent work has focused on DNN interpretability, and rapid progress has thus far made a thorough systematization of methods difficult. In this survey, we review over 300 works with a focus on inner interpretability tools. We introduce a taxonomy that classifies methods by what part of the network they help to explain (weights, neurons, subnetworks, or latent representations) and whether they are implemented during (intrinsic) or after (post hoc) training. To our knowledge, we are also the first to survey a number of connections between interpretability research and work in adversarial robustness, continual learning, modularity, network compression, and studying the human visual system. We discuss key challenges and argue that the status quo in interpretability research is largely unproductive. Finally, we highlight the importance of future work that emphasizes diagnostics, debugging, adversaries, and benchmarking in order to make interpretability tools more useful to engineers in practical applications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/satml54575.2023.00039

Cites

248 of 248 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Räuker, T., Ho, A., Casper, S., & Hadfield-Menell, D.
Affiliations
  • Epoch
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
Venue
2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-02
Pages
464-483
OpenAlex
W4378976798
Cited by
122
References
248
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 1
FWCI
21.42
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
deep neural network interpretability, mechanistic interpretability, post-hoc explanation, neuronal activation, subnetwork analysis, latent representations, adversarial robustness, continual learning, network modularity, network compression, human visual system, trustworthy AI

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