Feature-Flow Interpretation of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the great success of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) in computer vision tasks, their black-box aspect remains a critical concern. The interpretability of DCNN models has been attracting increasing attention. In this work, we propose a novel model, Feature-fLOW INterpretation (FLOWIN) model, to interpret a DCNN by its feature-flow. The FLOWIN can express deep-layer features as a sparse representation of shallow-layer features. Based on that, it distills the optimal feature-flow for the prediction of a given instance, starting from deep layers to shallow layers. Therefore, the FLOWIN can provide an instance-specific interpretation, which presents its feature-flow units and their interpretable meanings for its network decision. The FLOWIN can also give the quantitative interpretation in which the contribution of each flow unit in different layers is used to interpret the net decision. From the class-level view, we can further understand networks by studying feature-flows within and between classes. The FLOWIN not only provides the visualization of the feature-flow but also studies feature-flow quantitatively by investigating its density and similarity metrics. In our experiments, the FLOWIN is evaluated on different datasets and networks by quantitative and qualitative ways to show its interpretability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it