With a growing interest in understanding neural network prediction strategies, Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) have emerged as a popular tool for modeling human-understandable concepts in the latent space. Commonly, CAVs are computed by leveraging linear classifiers optimizing the *separability* of latent representations of samples with and without a given concept. However, in this paper we show that such a separability-oriented computation leads to solutions, which may diverge from the actual goal of precisely modeling the concept direction. This discrepancy can be attributed to the significant influence of distractor directions, i.e., signals unrelated to the concept, which are picked up by filters (i.e., weights) of linear models to optimize class-separability. To address this, we introduce *pattern-based CAVs*, solely focussing on concept signals, thereby providing more accurate concept directions. We evaluate various CAV methods in terms of their alignment with the true concept direction and their impact on CAV applications, including concept sensitivity testing and model correction for shortcut behavior caused by data artifacts. We demonstrate the benefits of pattern-based CAVs using the Pediatric Bone Age, ISIC2019, and FunnyBirds datasets with VGG, ResNet, ReXNet, EfficientNet, and Vision Transformer as model architectures.

While the evaluation of explanations is an important step towards trustworthy models, it needs to be done carefully, and the employed metrics need to be well-understood. Specifically model randomization testing can be overinterpreted if regarded as a primary criterion for selecting or discarding explanation methods. To address shortcomings of this test, we start by observing an experimental gap in the ranking of explanation methods between randomization-based sanity checks [1] and model output faithfulness measures (e.g. [20]). We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Firstly, we show that uninformative attribution maps created with zero pixel-wise covariance easily achieve high scores in this type of checks. Secondly, we show that top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability. That is, channels with large activations have a high probility to contribute strongly to the output, even after randomization of the network on top of them. Hence, explanations after randomization can only be expected to differ to a certain extent. This explains the observed experimental gap. In summary, these results demonstrate the inadequacy of model-randomization-based sanity checks as a criterion to rank attribution methods.

The evaluation of explanation methods is a research topic that has not yet been explored deeply, however, since explainability is supposed to strengthen trust in artificial intelligence, it is necessary to systematically review and compare explanation methods in order to confirm their correctness. Until now, no tool with focus on XAI evaluation exists that exhaustively and speedily allows researchers to evaluate the performance of explanations of neural network predictions. To increase transparency and reproducibility in the field, we therefore built Quantus—a comprehensive, evaluation toolkit in Python that includes a growing, well-organised collection of evaluation metrics and tutorials for evaluating explainable methods. The toolkit has been thoroughly tested and is available under an open-source license on PyPi (or on https://github.com/understandable-machine-intelligence-lab/Quantus/).

While rule-based attribution methods have proven useful for providing local explanations for Deep Neural Networks, explaining modern and more varied network architectures yields new challenges in generating trustworthy explanations, since the established rule sets might not be sufficient or applicable to novel network structures. As an elegant solution to the above issue, network canonization has recently been introduced. This procedure leverages the implementation-dependency of rule-based attributions and restructures a model into a functionally identical equivalent of alternative design to which established attribution rules can be applied. However, the idea of canonization and its usefulness have so far only been explored qualitatively. In this work, we quantitatively verify the beneficial effects of network canonization to rule-based attributions on VGG-16 and ResNet18 models with BatchNorm layers and thus extend the current best practices for obtaining reliable neural network explanations.

Integrated Gradients as an attribution method for deep neural network models offers simple implementability. However, it suffers from noisiness of explanations which affects the ease of interpretability. The SmoothGrad technique is proposed to solve the noisiness issue and smoothen the attribution maps of any gradient-based attribution method. In this paper, we present SmoothTaylor as a novel theoretical concept bridging Integrated Gradients and SmoothGrad, from the Taylor's theorem perspective. We apply the methods to the image classification problem, using the ILSVRC2012 ImageNet object recognition dataset, and a couple of pretrained image models to generate attribution maps. These attribution maps are empirically evaluated using quantitative measures for sensitivity and noise level. We further propose adaptive noising to optimize for the noise scale hyperparameter value. From our experiments, we find that the SmoothTaylor approach together with adaptive noising is able to generate better quality saliency maps with lesser noise and higher sensitivity to the relevant points in the input space as compared to Integrated Gradients.