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 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 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.

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.