-
Interactive Analysis of CNN Robustness
Authors:
Stefan Sietzen,
Mathias Lechner,
Judy Borowski,
Ramin Hasani,
Manuela Waldner
Abstract:
While convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have found wide adoption as state-of-the-art models for image-related tasks, their predictions are often highly sensitive to small input perturbations, which the human vision is robust against. This paper presents Perturber, a web-based application that allows users to instantaneously explore how CNN activations and predictions evolve when a 3D input scen…
▽ More
While convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have found wide adoption as state-of-the-art models for image-related tasks, their predictions are often highly sensitive to small input perturbations, which the human vision is robust against. This paper presents Perturber, a web-based application that allows users to instantaneously explore how CNN activations and predictions evolve when a 3D input scene is interactively perturbed. Perturber offers a large variety of scene modifications, such as camera controls, lighting and shading effects, background modifications, object morphing, as well as adversarial attacks, to facilitate the discovery of potential vulnerabilities. Fine-tuned model versions can be directly compared for qualitative evaluation of their robustness. Case studies with machine learning experts have shown that Perturber helps users to quickly generate hypotheses about model vulnerabilities and to qualitatively compare model behavior. Using quantitative analyses, we could replicate users' insights with other CNN architectures and input images, yielding new insights about the vulnerability of adversarially trained models.
△ Less
Submitted 14 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
How Well do Feature Visualizations Support Causal Understanding of CNN Activations?
Authors:
Roland S. Zimmermann,
Judy Borowski,
Robert Geirhos,
Matthias Bethge,
Thomas S. A. Wallis,
Wieland Brendel
Abstract:
A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These synthetic feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a u…
▽ More
A precise understanding of why units in an artificial network respond to certain stimuli would constitute a big step towards explainable artificial intelligence. One widely used approach towards this goal is to visualize unit responses via activation maximization. These synthetic feature visualizations are purported to provide humans with precise information about the image features that cause a unit to be activated - an advantage over other alternatives like strongly activating natural dataset samples. If humans indeed gain causal insight from visualizations, this should enable them to predict the effect of an intervention, such as how occluding a certain patch of the image (say, a dog's head) changes a unit's activation. Here, we test this hypothesis by asking humans to decide which of two square occlusions causes a larger change to a unit's activation. Both a large-scale crowdsourced experiment and measurements with experts show that on average the extremely activating feature visualizations by Olah et al. (2017) indeed help humans on this task ($68 \pm 4$% accuracy; baseline performance without any visualizations is $60 \pm 3$%). However, they do not provide any substantial advantage over other visualizations (such as e.g. dataset samples), which yield similar performance ($66\pm3$% to $67 \pm3$% accuracy). Taken together, we propose an objective psychophysical task to quantify the benefit of unit-level interpretability methods for humans, and find no evidence that a widely-used feature visualization method provides humans with better "causal understanding" of unit activations than simple alternative visualizations.
△ Less
Submitted 12 November, 2021; v1 submitted 23 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Exemplary Natural Images Explain CNN Activations Better than State-of-the-Art Feature Visualization
Authors:
Judy Borowski,
Roland S. Zimmermann,
Judith Schepers,
Robert Geirhos,
Thomas S. A. Wallis,
Matthias Bethge,
Wieland Brendel
Abstract:
Feature visualizations such as synthetic maximally activating images are a widely used explanation method to better understand the information processing of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At the same time, there are concerns that these visualizations might not accurately represent CNNs' inner workings. Here, we measure how much extremely activating images help humans to predict CNN activati…
▽ More
Feature visualizations such as synthetic maximally activating images are a widely used explanation method to better understand the information processing of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At the same time, there are concerns that these visualizations might not accurately represent CNNs' inner workings. Here, we measure how much extremely activating images help humans to predict CNN activations. Using a well-controlled psychophysical paradigm, we compare the informativeness of synthetic images by Olah et al. (2017) with a simple baseline visualization, namely exemplary natural images that also strongly activate a specific feature map. Given either synthetic or natural reference images, human participants choose which of two query images leads to strong positive activation. The experiments are designed to maximize participants' performance, and are the first to probe intermediate instead of final layer representations. We find that synthetic images indeed provide helpful information about feature map activations ($82\pm4\%$ accuracy; chance would be $50\%$). However, natural images - originally intended as a baseline - outperform synthetic images by a wide margin ($92\pm2\%$). Additionally, participants are faster and more confident for natural images, whereas subjective impressions about the interpretability of the feature visualizations are mixed. The higher informativeness of natural images holds across most layers, for both expert and lay participants as well as for hand- and randomly-picked feature visualizations. Even if only a single reference image is given, synthetic images provide less information than natural images ($65\pm5\%$ vs. $73\pm4\%$). In summary, synthetic images from a popular feature visualization method are significantly less informative for assessing CNN activations than natural images. We argue that visualization methods should improve over this baseline.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2021; v1 submitted 23 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
Five Points to Check when Comparing Visual Perception in Humans and Machines
Authors:
Christina M. Funke,
Judy Borowski,
Karolina Stosio,
Wieland Brendel,
Thomas S. A. Wallis,
Matthias Bethge
Abstract:
With the rise of machines to human-level performance in complex recognition tasks, a growing amount of work is directed towards comparing information processing in humans and machines. These studies are an exciting chance to learn about one system by studying the other. Here, we propose ideas on how to design, conduct and interpret experiments such that they adequately support the investigation of…
▽ More
With the rise of machines to human-level performance in complex recognition tasks, a growing amount of work is directed towards comparing information processing in humans and machines. These studies are an exciting chance to learn about one system by studying the other. Here, we propose ideas on how to design, conduct and interpret experiments such that they adequately support the investigation of mechanisms when comparing human and machine perception. We demonstrate and apply these ideas through three case studies. The first case study shows how human bias can affect how we interpret results, and that several analytic tools can help to overcome this human reference point. In the second case study, we highlight the difference between necessary and sufficient mechanisms in visual reasoning tasks. Thereby, we show that contrary to previous suggestions, feedback mechanisms might not be necessary for the tasks in question. The third case study highlights the importance of aligning experimental conditions. We find that a previously-observed difference in object recognition does not hold when adapting the experiment to make conditions more equitable between humans and machines. In presenting a checklist for comparative studies of visual reasoning in humans and machines, we hope to highlight how to overcome potential pitfalls in design or inference.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2021; v1 submitted 20 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
