Explaining Image Classifiers Generating Exemplars and Counter-Exemplars from Latent Representations
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
We present an approach to explain the decisions of black box image classifiers through synthetic exemplar and counter-exemplar learnt in the latent feature space. Our explanation method exploits the latent representations learned through an adversarial autoencoder for generating a synthetic neighborhood of the image for which an explanation is required. A decision tree is trained on a set of images represented in the latent space, and its decision rules are used to generate exemplar images showing how the original image can be modified to stay within its class. Counterfactual rules are used to generate counter-exemplars showing how the original image can “morph” into another class. The explanation also comprehends a saliency map highlighting the areas that contribute to its classification, and areas that push it into another class. A wide and deep experimental evaluation proves that the proposed method outperforms existing explainers in terms of fidelity, relevance, coherence, and stability, besides providing the most useful and interpretable explanations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it