Attribution methods, which employ heatmaps to identify the most influential regions of an image that impact model decisions, have gained widespread popularity as a type of explainability method. However, recent research has exposed the limited practical value of these methods, attributed in part to their narrow focus on the most prominent regions of an image - revealing “where” the model looks, but failing to elucidate “what” the model sees in those areas. In this work, we try to fill in this gap with CRAFT - a novel approach to identify both “what” and “where” by generating concept-based explanations. We introduce 3 new ingredients to the automatic concept extraction literature: (i) a recursive strategy to detect and decompose concepts across layers, (ii) a novel method for a more faithful estimation of concept importance using Sobol indices, and (iii) the use of implicit differentiation to unlock Concept Attribution Maps. We conduct both human and computer vision experiments to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed approach. We show that the proposed concept importance estimation technique is more faithful to the model than previous methods. When evaluating the usefulness of the method for human experimenters on a human-centered utility benchmark, we find that our approach significantly improves on two of the three test scenarios.

An important milestone for AI is the development of algorithms that can produce drawings that are indistinguishable from those of humans. Here, we adapt the ”diversity vs. recognizability” scoring framework from Boutin et al (2022) and find that one-shot diffusion models have indeed started to close the gap between humans and machines. However, using a finer-grained measure of the originality of individual samples, we show that strengthening the guidance of diffusion models helps improve the humanness of their drawings, but they still fall short of approximating the originality and recognizability of human drawings. Comparing human category diagnostic features, collected through an online psychophysics experiment, against those derived from diffusion models reveals that humans rely on fewer and more localized features. Overall, our study suggests that diffusion models have significantly helped improve the quality of machine-generated drawings; however, a gap between humans and machines remains – in part explainable by discrepancies in visual strategies.

Feature visualization has gained significant popularity as an explainability method, particularly after the influential work by Olah et al. in 2017. Despite its success, its widespread adoption has been limited due to issues in scaling to deeper neural networks and the reliance on tricks to generate interpretable images. Here, we describe MACO, a simple approach to address these shortcomings. It consists in optimizing solely an image's phase spectrum while keeping its magnitude constant to ensure that the generated explanations lie in the space of natural images. Our approach yields significantly better results -- both qualitatively and quantitatively -- unlocking efficient and interpretable feature visualizations for state-of-the-art neural networks. We also show that our approach exhibits an attribution mechanism allowing to augment feature visualizations with spatial importance. Furthermore, we enable quantitative evaluation of feature visualizations by introducing 3 metrics: transferability, plausibility, and alignment with natural images. We validate our method on various applications and we introduce a website featuring MACO visualizations for all classes of the ImageNet dataset, which will be made available upon acceptance. Overall, our study unlocks feature visualizations for the largest, state-of-the-art classification networks without resorting to any parametric prior image model, effectively advancing a field that has been stagnating since 2017 (Olah et al, 2017).

A multitude of explainability methods has been described to try to help users better understand how modern AI systems make decisions. However, most performance metrics developed to evaluate these methods have remained largely theoretical -- without much consideration for the human end-user. In particular, it is not yet clear (1) how useful current explainability methods are in real-world scenarios; and (2) whether current performance metrics accurately reflect the usefulness of explanation methods for the end user. To fill this gap, we conducted psychophysics experiments at scale ($n=1,150$) to evaluate the usefulness of representative attribution methods in three real-world scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the degree to which individual attribution methods help human participants better understand an AI system varies widely across these scenarios. This suggests the need to move beyond quantitative improvements of current attribution methods, towards the development of complementary approaches that provide qualitatively different sources of information to human end-users.

A fundamental component of human vision is our ability to parse complex visual scenes and judge the relations between their constituent objects. AI benchmarks for visual reasoning have driven rapid progress in recent years with state-of-the-art systems now reaching human accuracy on some of these benchmarks. Yet, there remains a major gap between humans and AI systems in terms of the sample efficiency with which they learn new visual reasoning tasks. Humans' remarkable efficiency at learning has been at least partially attributed to their ability to harness compositionality -- allowing them to efficiently take advantage of previously gained knowledge when learning new tasks. Here, we introduce a novel visual reasoning benchmark, Compositional Visual Relations (CVR), to drive progress towards the development of more data-efficient learning algorithms. We take inspiration from fluidic intelligence and non-verbal reasoning tests and describe a novel method for creating compositions of abstract rules and generating image datasets corresponding to these rules at scale. Our proposed benchmark includes measures of sample efficiency, generalization, compositionality, and transfer across task rules. We systematically evaluate modern neural architectures and find that convolutional architectures surpass transformer-based architectures across all performance measures in most data regimes. However, all computational models are much less data efficient than humans, even after learning informative visual representations using self-supervision. Overall, we hope our challenge will spur interest in developing neural architectures that can learn to harness compositionality for more efficient learning.