Assisting human experts in the interpretation of their visual process: A case study on assessing copper surface adhesive potency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Neural Networks are often though to lack interpretability due to the distributed nature of their internal representations. In contrast, humans can generally justify, in natural language, for their answer to a visual question with simple common sense reasoning. However, human introspection abilities have their own limits as one often struggles to justify for the recognition process behind our lowest level feature recognition ability: for instance, it is difficult to precisely explain why a given texture seems more characteristic of the surface of a finger nail rather than a plastic bottle. In this paper, we showcase an application in which deep learning models can actually help human experts justify for their own low-level visual recognition process: We study the problem of assessing the adhesive potency of copper sheets from microscopic pictures of their surface. Although highly trained material experts are able to qualitatively assess the surface adhesive potency, they are often unable to precisely justify for their decision process. We present a model that, under careful design considerations, is able to provide visual clues for human experts to understand and justify for their own recognition process. Not only can our model assist human experts in their interpretation of the surface characteristics, we show how this model can be used to test different hypothesis of the copper surface response to different manufacturing processes.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".