No abstract

No 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 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.

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 (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 experiment is designed to maximize participants' performance, and is the first to probe intermediate instead of final layer representations. We find that synthetic images indeed provide helpful information about feature map activations (82±4% accuracy; chance would be 50%). However, natural images-originally intended to be a baseline-outperform synthetic images by a wide margin (92%±2% accuracy). Additionally, participants are faster and more confident for natural images, whereas subjective impressions about the interpretability of feature visualization 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 ± 5% vs. 73 ± 4%). In summary, popular synthetic images from feature visualizations are significantly less informative for assessing CNN activations than natural images. We argue that future visualization methods should improve over this simple baseline.

No abstract