The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Improving Deep Learning Interpretability by Saliency Guided Training
Open accessAbstract
Saliency methods have been widely used to highlight important input features in model predictions. Most existing methods use backpropagation on a modified gradient function to generate saliency maps. Thus, noisy gradients can result in unfaithful feature attributions. In this paper, we tackle this issue and introduce a {\it saliency guided training}procedure for neural networks to reduce noisy gradients used in predictions while retaining the predictive performance of the model. Our saliency guided training procedure iteratively masks features with small and potentially noisy gradients while maximizing the similarity of model outputs for both masked and unmasked inputs. We apply the saliency guided training procedure to various synthetic and real data sets from computer vision, natural language processing, and time series across diverse neural architectures, including Recurrent Neural Networks, Convolutional Networks, and Transformers. Through qualitative and quantitative evaluations, we show that saliency guided training procedure significantly improves model interpretability across various domains while preserving its predictive performance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Ismail et al. proposed a new training procedure called saliency-guided training that presents outputs that are less noisy and clear and do not degrade the model's performance.
“To improve the accuracy of saliency maps, Ismail et al. [165] take a different approach by proposing a new training procedure called saliency-guided training.This procedure presents outputs that are less noisy and clear and do not degrade the model's performance.”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [165]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,495
Metadata
- Authors
- Ismail, A. A., Bravo, H. C., & Feizi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Genentech (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 34
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2111.14338
- OpenAlex
- W3213180370
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- neural information processing systems
- 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
- model interpretability, feature attribution, noisy gradients, saliency maps, feature masking, gradient-based explanation, neural network training, recurrent neural networks, transformer models, convolutional neural networks
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