CHAIN: Concept-harmonized Hierarchical Inference Interpretation of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the great success of networks, it witnesses the increasing demand for the interpretation of the internal network mechanism, especially for the net decision-making logic. To tackle the challenge, the Concept-harmonized HierArchical INference (CHAIN) is proposed to interpret the net decision-making process. For net-decisions being interpreted, the proposed method presents the CHAIN interpretation in which the net decision can be hierarchically deduced into visual concepts from high to low semantic levels. To achieve it, we propose three models sequentially, i.e., the concept harmonizing model, the hierarchical inference model, and the concept-harmonized hierarchical inference model. Firstly, in the concept harmonizing model, visual concepts from high to low semantic-levels are aligned with net-units from deep to shallow layers. Secondly, in the hierarchical inference model, the concept in a deep layer is disassembled into units in shallow layers. Finally, in the concept-harmonized hierarchical inference model, a deep-layer concept is inferred from its shallow-layer concepts. After several rounds, the concept-harmonized hierarchical inference is conducted backward from the highest semantic level to the lowest semantic level. Finally, net decision-making is explained as a form of concept-harmonized hierarchical inference, which is comparable to human decision-making. Meanwhile, the net layer structure for feature learning can be explained based on the hierarchical visual concepts. In quantitative and qualitative experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CHAIN at the instance and class levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".