A generalizable saliency map-based interpretation of model outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the significant challenges of deep neural networks is that the complex nature of the network prevents human comprehension of the outcome of the network. Consequently, the applicability of complex machine learning models is limited in the safety-critical domains, which incurs risk to life and property. To fully exploit the capabilities of complex neural networks, we propose a non-intrusive interpretability technique that uses the input and output of the model to generate a saliency map. The method works by empirically optimizing a randomly initialized input mask by localizing and weighing individual pixels according to their sensitivity towards the target class. Our experiments show that the proposed model interpretability approach performs better than the existing saliency map-based approaches methods at localizing the relevant input pixels. Furthermore, to obtain a global perspective on the target-specific explanation, we propose a saliency map reconstruction approach to generate acceptable variations of the salient inputs from the space of input data distribution for which the model outcome remains unaltered. Experiments show that our interpretability method can reconstruct the salient part of the input with a classification accuracy of 89%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".