TbExplain: A Text-Based Explanation Method for Scene Classification Models With the Statistical Prediction Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heatmaps are common tools in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) field, but they are not without imperfections; E.g., non-expert users may not grasp the underlying rationale of heatmaps, wherein pixels relevant to the model’s prediction are highlighted through distinct intensities or colors. Moreover, objects and regions of the input image that are relevant to the model prediction are frequently not entirely differentiated by heatmaps. In this paper, we propose a framework called TbExplain that employs XAI techniques and a pre-trained object detector to present text-based explanations of scene classification models. Moreover, TbExplain incorporates a novel method to correct predictions and textually explain them based on the statistics of objects in the input image when the initial prediction is unreliable. To assess the trustworthiness and validity of the text-based explanations, we conducted a qualitative experiment, and the findings indicated that these explanations are sufficiently reliable. Furthermore, our quantitative and qualitative experiments on TbExplain with scene classification datasets reveal an improvement in classification accuracy over ResNet variants.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".