PreprintCited by 487Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Visualizing Deep Neural Network Decisions: Prediction Difference Analysis

Open access
Zintgraf, Luisa M, Cohen, Taco S, Adel, Tameem, Welling, Max·2017·arXiv

Abstract

This article presents the prediction difference analysis method for visualizing the response of a deep neural network to a specific input. When classifying images, the method highlights areas in a given input image that provide evidence for or against a certain class. It overcomes several shortcoming of previous methods and provides great additional insight into the decision making process of classifiers. Making neural network decisions interpretable through visualization is important both to improve models and to accelerate the adoption of black-box classifiers in application areas such as medicine. We illustrate the method in experiments on natural images (ImageNet data), as well as medical images (MRI brain scans).

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1702.04595

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Recent work on effective receptive fields and salient regions reveals that only a small proportion of pixels in the theoretical receptive field contribute significantly to the final network prediction.

    “Recent works on effective receptive fields [31] and salient regions [41, 44, 13, 7] reveal that only a small proportion of pixels in the theoretical receptive field contribute significantly to the final network prediction.”

    From Deformable ConvNets V2: More Deformable, Better Results (2019) · cites this paper as [44]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zintgraf, L. M., Cohen, T. S., Adel, T., & Welling, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2622-8912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2590082389
Cited by
487
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 15 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 1
FWCI
29.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
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
deep neural network interpretability, image classification, black-box classifiers, medical image classification, brain MRI, ImageNet

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