Explainable Person Re-Identification with Attribute-guided Metric Distillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the great progress of person re-identification (ReID) with the adoption of Convolutional Neural Networks, current ReID models are opaque and only outputs a scalar distance between two persons. There are few methods providing users semantically understandable explanations for why two persons are the same one or not. In this paper, we propose a post-hoc method, named Attribute-guided Metric Distillation (AMD), to explain existing ReID models. This is the first method to explore attributes to answer: 1) what and where the attributes make two persons different, and 2) how much each attribute contributes to the difference. In AMD, we design a pluggable interpreter network for target models to generate quantitative contributions of attributes and visualize accurate attention maps of the most discriminative attributes. To achieve this goal, we propose a metric distillation loss by which the interpreter learns to decompose the distance of two persons into components of attributes with knowledge distilled from the target model. Moreover, we propose an attribute prior loss to make the interpreter generate attribute-guided attention maps and to eliminate biases caused by the imbalanced distribution of attributes. This loss can guide the interpreter to focus on the exclusive and discriminative attributes rather than the large-area but common attributes of two persons. Comprehensive experiments show that the interpreter can generate effective and intuitive explanations for varied models and generalize well under cross-domain settings. As a by-product, the accuracy of target models can be further improved with our interpreter.1
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".