Cited by 15Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interpreting Visual Representations of Neural Networks via Network Dissection

Open access

Abstract

The success of recent deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) depends on learning hidden representations that can summarize the important factors of variation behind the data. However, CNNs are often criticized as being black boxes that lack interpretability, since they have millions of unexplained model parameters. In this work, we describe Network Dissection, a method that interprets networks by providing labels for the units of their deep visual representations. The proposed method quantifies the interpretability of CNN representations by evaluating the alignment between individual hidden units and a set of visual semantic concepts. By identifying the best alignments, units are given human interpretable labels across a range of objects, parts, scenes, textures, materials, and colors. The method reveals that deep representations are more transparent and interpretable than expected: we find that representations are significantly more interpretable than they would be under a random equivalently powerful basis. We apply the method to interpret and compare the latent representations of various network architectures trained to solve different supervised and self-supervised training tasks. We then examine factors affecting the network interpretability such as the number of the training iterations, regularizations, different initializations, and the network depth and width. Finally, we show that the interpreted units can be used to provide explicit explanations of a prediction g…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/18.10.1244

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Broden samples from different classes are unbalanced.

    “we find that samples from different classes are unbalanced.”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

  • Broden was originally collected to discover the alignment between visual concepts and hidden units of CNNs for network interpretability.

    “since it is originally collected to discover the alignment between visual concepts and hidden units of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for network interpretability [26,29]”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, B., Bau, D., Oliva, A., & Torralba, A.
Affiliations
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2018-09-01
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
1244
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2893080932
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
neural network interpretability, convolutional neural networks, latent representations, self-supervised learning, model explanation, network depth and width, hierarchical representation

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