Interpreting Deep Neural Networks with Relative Sectional Propagation by Analyzing Comparative Gradients and Hostile Activations
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
The clear transparency of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) is hampered by complex internal structures and nonlinear transformations along deep hierarchies. In this paper, we propose a new attribution method, Relative Sectional Propagation (RSP), for fully decomposing the output predictions with the characteristics of class-discriminative attributions and clear objectness. We carefully revisit some shortcomings of backpropagation-based attribution methods, which are trade-off relations in decomposing DNNs. We define hostile factor as an element that interferes with finding the attributions of the target and propagate it in a distinguishable way to overcome the non-suppressed nature of activated neurons. As a result, it is possible to assign the bi-polar relevance scores of the target (positive) and hostile (negative) attributions while maintaining each attribution aligned with the importance. We also present the purging techniques to prevent the decrement of the gap between the relevance scores of the target and hostile attributions during backward propagation by eliminating the conflicting units to channel attribution map. Therefore, our method makes it possible to decompose the predictions of DNNs with clearer class-discriminativeness and detailed elucidations of activation neurons compared to the conventional attribution methods. In a verified experimental environment, we report the results of the assessments: (i) Pointing Game, (ii) mIoU, and (iii) Model Sensitivity with PASCAL VOC 2007, MS COCO 2014, and ImageNet datasets. The results demonstrate that our method outperforms existing backward decomposition methods, including distinctive and intuitive visualizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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