Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Less is More: Efficient Black-box Attribution via Minimal Interpretable Subset Selection

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-22 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Reformulating black-box attribution as submodular subset selection identifies key input regions more faithfully using fewer samples.

desk verdict LiMA recasts attribution as submodular selection with bidirectional greedy, delivering empirical gains but needing checks on the function's properties. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.00470 v2 pith:BIDSTQQX submitted 2025-04-01 cs.LG cs.CV

Ruoyu Chen , Siyuan Liang , Jingzhi Li , Shiming Liu , Li Liu , Hua Zhang , Xiaochun Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords black-boxattributionsubmodularsubsetselectioninterpretableregionsmodelexplanationbidirectionalgreedysearchfoundationmodelsinsertiondeletionevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses the combinatorial explosion when attributing model decisions to discrete inputs such as image regions by recasting the task as an optimization problem that selects minimal important subsets. It introduces LiMA, which defines a submodular function to score how subsets influence predictions and applies a bidirectional greedy search to rank regions efficiently while locating both high- and low-impact areas. A sympathetic reader would care because the method promises explanations that remain accurate yet require less input data, backed by tests on eight foundation models that report gains on standard faithfulness measures and faster runtime than plain greedy search.

What carries the argument

The submodular function that quantifies subset importance together with the bidirectional greedy search algorithm for ranking and selecting minimal interpretable input regions.

What would settle it

On a new set of foundation models or image datasets, the insertion and deletion faithfulness scores of LiMA would fail to exceed those of prior attribution methods while using fewer regions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LiMA reformulates the attribution of important regions as an optimization problem for submodular subset selection. First, a submodular function is designed to quantify subset importance and capture their impact on decision outcomes. Then, a bidirectional greedy search algorithm efficiently ranks input sub-regions by importance, identifying both the most and least important samples while ensuring an optimal attribution boundary that minimizes errors.

Load-bearing premise

The submodular function designed to quantify subset importance accurately captures the true impact on decision outcomes without requiring post-hoc tuning or data-specific adjustments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Provides faithful interpretations with fewer regions across eight foundation models.
  • Achieves an average 36.3 percent improvement in Insertion and 39.6 percent in Deletion metrics.
  • Runs 1.6 times faster than naive greedy search for attribution.
  • Yields 86.1 percent higher average highest confidence when explaining reasons for model prediction errors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The bidirectional search might be adapted to locate minimal subsets that preserve or remove specific model behaviors for targeted debugging.
  • If the submodular scoring generalizes, the same machinery could apply to other discrete inputs such as tokenized text sequences.
  • Identifying least-important regions could support data pruning experiments that test whether removing them leaves model accuracy intact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LiMA, a black-box attribution method that reformulates identifying influential input regions as a submodular subset selection optimization problem. It introduces a custom submodular function to quantify subset importance for model decisions and a bidirectional greedy search algorithm to efficiently find both most- and least-important regions while defining an optimal attribution boundary. Experiments on eight foundation models report average gains of 36.3% on Insertion and 39.6% on Deletion metrics versus baselines, 1.6x speedup over naive greedy search, and 86.1% higher confidence on error explanations, with code released.

Significance. If the submodular function is verifiably monotone submodular and the empirical gains are robust, the approach could advance efficient, faithful black-box explanations for discrete inputs like images by using fewer regions and providing both positive and negative attributions. The code release and multi-model evaluation are positive factors supporting reproducibility and generalization claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 (submodular function definition)] The design of the submodular function (abstract and §3) is asserted to quantify subset importance and capture decision impact, yet no formal proof of monotonicity or the diminishing-returns property is supplied, nor is there empirical verification on the model output surface. This is load-bearing because the bidirectional greedy algorithm's (1-1/e) approximation guarantee depends on it; without verification the reported metric gains and 'optimal attribution boundary' become purely empirical rather than theoretically supported.
  2. [§4 (experiments)] Experimental results (abstract and §4) report average improvements of 36.3% Insertion / 39.6% Deletion and 1.6x speedup without error bars, standard deviations, or statistical significance tests across the eight models. This weakens the strength of the generalization and efficiency claims.
  3. [§4 (experiments and algorithm)] No ablation is presented on the bidirectional search versus standard greedy or on how parameters of the submodular function were selected (abstract states 'design a submodular function' but provides no tuning details or sensitivity analysis). This leaves open whether the gains are driven by the specific search procedure or by implicit data-specific adjustments.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains grammatical issues ('which aim to identify' should be 'which aims to identify'; repeated 'on average' in the error-explanation sentence).
  2. [§3] Notation for the submodular function and the bidirectional search steps could be clarified with explicit pseudocode or a small worked example to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and valuable suggestions for improving the theoretical and empirical aspects of our work. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (submodular function definition)] The design of the submodular function (abstract and §3) is asserted to quantify subset importance and capture decision impact, yet no formal proof of monotonicity or the diminishing-returns property is supplied, nor is there empirical verification on the model output surface. This is load-bearing because the bidirectional greedy algorithm's (1-1/e) approximation guarantee depends on it; without verification the reported metric gains and 'optimal attribution boundary' become purely empirical rather than theoretically supported.

    Authors: We recognize that the absence of a formal proof for the monotonicity and diminishing returns properties of our submodular function, as well as empirical verification, limits the theoretical support for the approximation guarantee. We will revise Section 3 to include a formal mathematical proof establishing these properties and add empirical analysis verifying the submodular behavior on the model outputs. This will strengthen the connection between the algorithm's guarantees and the reported performance improvements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (experiments)] Experimental results (abstract and §4) report average improvements of 36.3% Insertion / 39.6% Deletion and 1.6x speedup without error bars, standard deviations, or statistical significance tests across the eight models. This weakens the strength of the generalization and efficiency claims.

    Authors: We agree that reporting without error bars or statistical tests reduces the robustness of our claims. In the revised version, we will update the experimental results in Section 4 to include error bars, standard deviations across the eight models, and statistical significance tests to validate the average improvements of 36.3% on Insertion and 39.6% on Deletion, as well as the speedup. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4 (experiments and algorithm)] No ablation is presented on the bidirectional search versus standard greedy or on how parameters of the submodular function were selected (abstract states 'design a submodular function' but provides no tuning details or sensitivity analysis). This leaves open whether the gains are driven by the specific search procedure or by implicit data-specific adjustments.

    Authors: We will incorporate ablations in the revised manuscript to compare the bidirectional greedy search against the standard greedy algorithm, quantifying the efficiency benefits. Additionally, we will provide details on the selection of parameters for the submodular function and include a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate that the performance gains are not due to data-specific tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reformulates black-box attribution as a submodular subset selection optimization problem and introduces a custom submodular function plus bidirectional greedy search as explicit algorithmic contributions. Performance claims (36.3% Insertion / 39.6% Deletion gains, 1.6x speed-up) are obtained by direct comparison against external baselines on eight foundation models rather than by algebraic reduction of fitted parameters or self-citations. No load-bearing step equates a derived quantity to its own inputs by construction, and the central optimization framework remains independent of the reported empirical outcomes.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the design of a submodular function that is assumed to quantify subset importance correctly and on the bidirectional greedy algorithm being able to locate an optimal attribution boundary. No explicit free parameters are named in the abstract, but the submodular scoring function itself functions as an implicit modeling choice whose form is not derived from first principles.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption A submodular function can be defined that accurately quantifies the importance of input subsets for model decisions.
    Invoked when the paper states it designs a submodular function to assess interactions and capture impact on decision outcomes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Less is More: Efficient Black-box Attribution via Minimal Interpretable Subset Selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIDSTQQX

@misc{pith2026250400470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Less is More: Efficient Black-box Attribution via Minimal Interpretable Subset Selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIDSTQQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.00470}
}
read the original abstract

To develop a trustworthy AI system, which aim to identify the input regions that most influence the models decisions. The primary task of existing attribution methods lies in efficiently and accurately identifying the relationships among input-prediction interactions. Particularly when the input data is discrete, such as images, analyzing the relationship between inputs and outputs poses a significant challenge due to the combinatorial explosion. In this paper, we propose a novel and efficient black-box attribution mechanism, LiMA (Less input is More faithful for Attribution), which reformulates the attribution of important regions as an optimization problem for submodular subset selection. First, to accurately assess interactions, we design a submodular function that quantifies subset importance and effectively captures their impact on decision outcomes. Then, efficiently ranking input sub-regions by their importance for attribution, we improve optimization efficiency through a novel bidirectional greedy search algorithm. LiMA identifies both the most and least important samples while ensuring an optimal attribution boundary that minimizes errors. Extensive experiments on eight foundation models demonstrate that our method provides faithful interpretations with fewer regions and exhibits strong generalization, shows an average improvement of 36.3% in Insertion and 39.6% in Deletion. Our method also outperforms the naive greedy search in attribution efficiency, being 1.6 times faster. Furthermore, when explaining the reasons behind model prediction errors, the average highest confidence achieved by our method is, on average, 86.1% higher than that of state-of-the-art attribution algorithms. The code is available at https://github.com/RuoyuChen10/LIMA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.00470 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed LIMA method. We begin by performing semantic sub-region division on the image, either using superpixel￾based methods or the Segment Anything algorithm. Next, we apply a bidirectional greedy search algorithm along with a designed submodular function to simultaneously identify the most and least important samples, ranking these sub-regions accordingly. Finally, based on sub-region ranking… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of strong interactive response times. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visual explanations of the CLIP model using various attribution mechanisms, with our approach effectively reducing noise and eliminating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Attribution visualizations of decision results for different multimodal foundation models on the ImageNet dataset. The first row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Attribution visualizations for audio classification on ImageBind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the method for discovering what causes foundation model prediction errors. The Insertion curve shows the correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the method for discovering what causes medical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An example of attribution results. A. Search region at the Insertion curve inflection point. B. Visualization using our strategy. C. Visualization using the baseline. 6.5.4 Ablation on Division Sub-region Number The sub-region division algorithm plays a key role in de…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional interpretation visualization for different multimodal foundation models on the ImageNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional interpretation visualization for CLIP (ResNet-101) on the ImageNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal ResNet-101 on the ImageNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal vision transformer (Large) and swin-transformer (Large) on the ImageNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal vision mamba (base) and mambavision (L2) on the ImageNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Visualization of the method for discovering what causes model prediction errors on the CUB-200-2011 dataset. The first row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Visualization of the method for discovering what causes model prediction errors on the CUB-200-2011 dataset. The first row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Consistent Evidence, Robust Recognition: Faithful Attribution Regularization under Geometric Transformations

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Submodular region-search attributions plus a ranking/truncation loss regularize models toward spatially corresponding evidence under geometric transforms, improving attribution metrics and transformed accuracy with sm...

  2. PhaseWin: An Efficient Search Algorithm for Faithful Visual Attribution

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PhaseWin is a phased window-search algorithm for faithful visual attribution that achieves linear evaluation complexity with near-greedy faithfulness under monotone evidence-accumulation and feature-level structural a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A new metric based on association rules to assess feature- attribution explainability techniques for time series forecasting,

    A. Troncoso-Garc ´ıa, M. Mart´ınez-Ballesteros, F. Mart´ınez-´Alvarez, and A. Troncoso, “A new metric based on association rules to assess feature- attribution explainability techniques for time series forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Towards human-centered ex- plainable ai: A survey of user studies for model explanations,

    Y . Rong, T. Leemann, T.-T. Nguyen, L. Fiedler, P. Qian, V . Unhelkar, T. Seidel, G. Kasneci, and E. Kasneci, “Towards human-centered ex- plainable ai: A survey of user studies for model explanations,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 2104–2122, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Explainable deep learning methods in medical image classification: A survey,

    C. Patr ´ıcio, J. C. Neves, and L. F. Teixeira, “Explainable deep learning methods in medical image classification: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1–41, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, op- portunities and challenges toward responsible ai,

    A. B. Arrieta, N. D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garc ´ıa, S. Gil-L ´opez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins et al. , “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, op- portunities and challenges toward responsible ai,” Information fusion , vol. 58, pp. 82–115, 2020. 1 16

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Sim2Word: Explaining similarity with representative attribute words via counter- factual explanations,

    R. Chen, J. Li, H. Zhang, C. Sheng, L. Liu, and X. Cao, “Sim2Word: Explaining similarity with representative attribute words via counter- factual explanations,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1–22, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Going beyond XAI: A systematic survey for explanation-guided learning,

    Y . Gao, S. Gu, J. Jiang, S. R. Hong, D. Yu, and L. Zhao, “Going beyond XAI: A systematic survey for explanation-guided learning,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1–39, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers,

    L. Chen, P. Wu, K. Chitta, B. Jaeger, A. Geiger, and H. Li, “End-to-end autonomous driving: Challenges and frontiers,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 10 164– 10 183, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Less is more: Fewer interpretable region via submodular subset selection,

    R. Chen, H. Zhang, S. Liang, J. Li, and X. Cao, “Less is more: Fewer interpretable region via submodular subset selection,” in ICLR, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22

    work page 2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Making sense of dependence: Ef- ficient black-box explanations using dependence measure,

    P. Novello, T. Fel, and D. Vigouroux, “Making sense of dependence: Ef- ficient black-box explanations using dependence measure,” in NeurIPS, 2022, pp. 4344–4357. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23

    2022

  2. [10]

    Unifying fourteen post-hoc attribution methods with tay- lor interactions,

    H. Deng, N. Zou, M. Du, W. Chen, G. Feng, Z. Yang, Z. Li, and Q. Zhang, “Unifying fourteen post-hoc attribution methods with tay- lor interactions,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 1, 7

    2024

  3. [11]

    Interpreting object-level foundation models via visual precision search,

    R. Chen, S. Liang, J. Li, S. Liu, M. Li, Z. Huang, H. Zhang, and X. Cao, “Interpreting object-level foundation models via visual precision search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16198, 2024. 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    Illuminating salient contributions in neuron activation with attribution equilibrium,

    W.-J. Nam and S.-W. Lee, “Illuminating salient contributions in neuron activation with attribution equilibrium,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 1120–1131, 2025. 1

    2025

  5. [13]

    Local interpretations for explainable natural language processing: A survey,

    S. Luo, H. Ivison, S. C. Han, and J. Poon, “Local interpretations for explainable natural language processing: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 1–36, 2024. 1

    2024

  6. [14]

    A review and benchmark of feature importance methods for neural networks,

    H. Mandler and B. Weigand, “A review and benchmark of feature importance methods for neural networks,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 1–30, 2024. 1

    2024

  7. [15]

    Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions,

    R. Dwivedi, D. Dave, H. Naik, S. Singhal, R. Omer, P. Patel, B. Qian, Z. Wen, T. Shah, G. Morgan et al. , “Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 1–33, 2023. 1

    2023

  8. [16]

    On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation,

    S. Bach, A. Binder, G. Montavon, F. Klauschen, K.-R. M ¨uller, and W. Samek, “On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation,” PloS One , vol. 10, no. 7, p. e0130140, 2015. 1, 3

    2015

  9. [17]

    Axiomatic attribution for deep networks,

    M. Sundararajan, A. Taly, and Q. Yan, “Axiomatic attribution for deep networks,” in ICML, 2017, pp. 3319–3328. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18

    2017

  10. [18]

    Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 336–359, 2020. 1, 3, 11, 12

    2020

  11. [19]

    iGOS++: integrated gradient optimized saliency by bilateral perturbations,

    S. Khorram, T. Lawson, and L. Fuxin, “iGOS++: integrated gradient optimized saliency by bilateral perturbations,” in CHIL, 2021, pp. 174–

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gradient- based visual explanation for transformer-based clip,

    C. Zhao, K. Wang, X. Zeng, R. Zhao, and A. B. Chan, “Gradient- based visual explanation for transformer-based clip,” in ICML, 2024, pp. 61 072–61 091. 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13

    2024

  13. [21]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 4765–4774. 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

    2017

  14. [22]

    Explain any concept: Segment anything meets concept-based explanation,

    A. Sun, P. Ma, Y . Yuan, and S. Wang, “Explain any concept: Segment anything meets concept-based explanation,” in NeurIPS, 2023. 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13

    2023

  15. [23]

    RISE: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models,

    V . Petsiuk, A. Das, and K. Saenko, “RISE: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models,” in BMVC, 2018, p. 151. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21

    2018

  16. [24]

    Defining and extracting generalizable interaction primitives from dnns,

    L. Chen, S. Lou, B. Huang, and Q. Zhang, “Defining and extracting generalizable interaction primitives from dnns,” in ICLR, 2024. 1, 6, 7

    2024

  17. [25]

    Towards the difficulty for a deep neural network to learn concepts of different complexities,

    D. Liu, H. Deng, X. Cheng, Q. Ren, K. Wang, and Q. Zhang, “Towards the difficulty for a deep neural network to learn concepts of different complexities,” in NeurIPS, 2023, pp. 41 283–41 304. 1

    2023

  18. [26]

    Fujishige, Submodular functions and optimization

    S. Fujishige, Submodular functions and optimization. Elsevier, 2005. 1, 4, 6

    2005

  19. [27]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in ICML, 2021, pp. 8748–8763. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19

    2021

  20. [28]

    ImageBind: One embedding space to bind them all,

    R. Girdhar, A. El-Nouby, Z. Liu, M. Singh, K. V . Alwala, A. Joulin, and I. Misra, “ImageBind: One embedding space to bind them all,” in CVPR, 2023, pp. 15 180–15 190. 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19

    2023

  21. [29]

    LanguageBind: Extending video-language pre- training to n-modality by language-based semantic alignment,

    B. Zhu, B. Lin, M. Ning, Y . Yan, J. Cui, W. HongFa, Y . Pang, W. Jiang, J. Zhang, Z. Li et al. , “LanguageBind: Extending video-language pre- training to n-modality by language-based semantic alignment,” in ICLR,

  22. [30]

    2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19

  23. [31]

    Quilt-1M: One million image- text pairs for histopathology,

    W. Ikezogwo, S. Seyfioglu, F. Ghezloo, D. Geva, F. Sheikh Mohammed, P. K. Anand, R. Krishna, and L. Shapiro, “Quilt-1M: One million image- text pairs for histopathology,” in NeurIPS, 2024, pp. 37 995–38 017. 2, 8, 13

    2024

  24. [32]

    ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” inCVPR, 2009, pp. 248–255. 2, 8, 12

    2009

  25. [33]

    VGGSound: A large- scale audio-visual dataset,

    H. Chen, W. Xie, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “VGGSound: A large- scale audio-visual dataset,” in ICASSP, 2020, pp. 721–725. 2, 8, 12

    2020

  26. [34]

    Caltech-UCSD Birds 200. Technical Report CNS-TR- 2010–001,

    P. Welinder, S. Branson, T. Mita, C. Wah, F. Schroff, S. Be-longie, and P. Perona, “Caltech-UCSD Birds 200. Technical Report CNS-TR- 2010–001,” Technical Report CNS-TR-2010–001, California Institute of Technology, 2010. 1, Tech. Rep., 2010. 2, 8, 12, 14

    2010

  27. [35]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild,

    Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang, “Deep learning face attributes in the wild,” in ICCV, 2015, pp. 3730–3738. 2, 8

    2015

  28. [36]

    VGGFace2: A dataset for recognising faces across pose and age,

    Q. Cao, L. Shen, W. Xie, O. M. Parkhi, and A. Zisserman, “VGGFace2: A dataset for recognising faces across pose and age,” in IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2018, pp. 67–74. 2, 8

    2018

  29. [37]

    Lung and colon cancer histopathological image dataset (LC25000),

    A. A. Borkowski, M. M. Bui, L. B. Thomas, C. P. Wilson, L. A. DeLand, and S. M. Mastorides, “Lung and colon cancer histopathological image dataset (LC25000),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12142, 2019. 2, 8, 12

    1912

  30. [38]

    Deep inside convolutional networks: visualising image classification models and saliency maps,

    K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Deep inside convolutional networks: visualising image classification models and saliency maps,” in ICLR (Workshop Poster), 2014. 3, 10, 11, 12

    2014

  31. [39]

    Defining and extracting generalizable interaction primitives from dnns,

    L. Chen, S. Lou, B. Huang, and Q. Zhang, “Defining and extracting generalizable interaction primitives from dnns,” in ICLR, 2024. 3

    2024

  32. [40]

    Grad-CAM++: Generalized gradient-based visual explanations for deep convolutional networks,

    A. Chattopadhay, A. Sarkar, P. Howlader, and V . N. Balasubramanian, “Grad-CAM++: Generalized gradient-based visual explanations for deep convolutional networks,” in WACV, 2018, pp. 839–847. 3, 14, 23

    2018

  33. [41]

    Score-CAM: Score-weighted visual explanations for con- volutional neural networks,

    H. Wang, Z. Wang, M. Du, F. Yang, Z. Zhang, S. Ding, P. Mardziel, and X. Hu, “Score-CAM: Score-weighted visual explanations for con- volutional neural networks,” in CVPR Workshops, 2020, pp. 24–25. 3, 14

    2020

  34. [42]

    ViT-CX: causal explanation of vision transformers,

    W. Xie, X.-H. Li, C. C. Cao, and N. L. Zhang, “ViT-CX: causal explanation of vision transformers,” in IJCAI, 2023, pp. 1569–1577. 3, 10, 12, 13

    2023

  35. [43]

    A value for n-person games,

    L. S. Shapley, “A value for n-person games,” Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 28, pp. 307–318, 1953. 3

    1953

  36. [44]

    Harsanyinet: Computing accurate shapley values in a single forward propagation,

    L. Chen, S. Lou, K. Zhang, J. Huang, and Q. Zhang, “Harsanyinet: Computing accurate shapley values in a single forward propagation,” in ICML, 2023, pp. 4804–4825. 3

    2023

  37. [45]

    Problems with shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures,

    I. E. Kumar, S. Venkatasubramanian, C. Scheidegger, and S. Friedler, “Problems with shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures,” in ICML, 2020, pp. 5491–5500. 3, 7

    2020

  38. [46]

    ”why should i trust you?

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “”why should i trust you?” explaining the predictions of any classifier,” inSIGKDD, 2016, pp. 1135–

    2016

  39. [47]

    One explanation is not enough: structured attention graphs for image classification,

    V . Shitole, F. Li, M. Kahng, P. Tadepalli, and A. Fern, “One explanation is not enough: structured attention graphs for image classification,” in NeurIPS, 2021, pp. 11 352–11 363. 3

    2021

  40. [48]

    Transformer interpretability beyond attention visualization,

    H. Chefer, S. Gur, and L. Wolf, “Transformer interpretability beyond attention visualization,” in CVPR, 2021, pp. 782–791. 3

    2021

  41. [49]

    Vision transformers need registers,

    T. Darcet, M. Oquab, J. Mairal, and P. Bojanowski, “Vision transformers need registers,” in ICLR, 2024. 3

    2024

  42. [50]

    Interpreting clip’s image representation via text-based decomposition,

    Y . Gandelsman, A. A. Efros, and J. Steinhardt, “Interpreting clip’s image representation via text-based decomposition,” in ICLR, 2024. 3

    2024

  43. [51]

    Discover and cure: Concept-aware mitigation of spurious correlation,

    S. Wu, M. Yuksekgonul, L. Zhang, and J. Zou, “Discover and cure: Concept-aware mitigation of spurious correlation,” in ICML, 2023, pp. 37 765–37 786. 4

    2023

  44. [52]

    Meaningfully debugging model mistakes using conceptual counterfactual explanations,

    A. Abid, M. Yuksekgonul, and J. Zou, “Meaningfully debugging model mistakes using conceptual counterfactual explanations,” in ICML, 2022, pp. 66–88. 4

    2022

  45. [53]

    Over- looked factors in concept-based explanations: Dataset choice, concept learnability, and human capability,

    V . V . Ramaswamy, S. S. Kim, R. Fong, and O. Russakovsky, “Over- looked factors in concept-based explanations: Dataset choice, concept learnability, and human capability,” in CVPR, 2023, pp. 10 932–10 941. 4

    2023

  46. [54]

    Talisman: targeted active learning for object detection with rare classes and slices using submodular mutual information,

    S. Kothawade, S. Ghosh, S. Shekhar, Y . Xiang, and R. Iyer, “Talisman: targeted active learning for object detection with rare classes and slices using submodular mutual information,” in ECCV, 2022, pp. 1–16. 4

    2022

  47. [55]

    Ef- ficient modality selection in multimodal learning,

    Y . He, R. Cheng, G. Balasubramaniam, Y .-H. H. Tsai, and H. Zhao, “Ef- ficient modality selection in multimodal learning,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 25, no. 47, pp. 1–39, 2024. 4 17

    2024

  48. [56]

    Marginal contribution feature importance-an axiomatic approach for explaining data,

    A. Catav, B. Fu, Y . Zoabi, A. L. W. Meilik, N. Shomron, J. Ernst, S. Sankararaman, and R. Gilad-Bachrach, “Marginal contribution feature importance-an axiomatic approach for explaining data,” in ICML, 2021, pp. 1324–1335. 4

    2021

  49. [57]

    Stream- ing weak submodularity: Interpreting neural networks on the fly,

    E. Elenberg, A. G. Dimakis, M. Feldman, and A. Karbasi, “Stream- ing weak submodularity: Interpreting neural networks on the fly,” in NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 4044–4054. 4

    2017

  50. [58]

    Learning to explain: An information-theoretic perspective on model interpretation,

    J. Chen, L. Song, M. Wainwright, and M. Jordan, “Learning to explain: An information-theoretic perspective on model interpretation,” in ICML, 2018, pp. 883–892. 4

    2018

  51. [59]

    Scalable subset sampling with neural conditional poisson networks,

    A. Pervez, P. Lippe, and E. Gavves, “Scalable subset sampling with neural conditional poisson networks,” in ICLR, 2023, pp. 1–21. 4

    2023

  52. [60]

    ”what data benefits my classifier?

    A. Chhabra, P. Li, P. Mohapatra, and H. Liu, “”what data benefits my classifier?” enhancing model performance and interpretability through influence-based data selection,” in ICLR, 2024. 4

    2024

  53. [61]

    An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—i,

    G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher, “An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—i,” Mathe- matical programming, vol. 14, pp. 265–294, 1978. 4

    1978

  54. [62]

    Lazier than lazy greedy,

    B. Mirzasoleiman, A. Badanidiyuru, A. Karbasi, J. V ondr ´ak, and A. Krause, “Lazier than lazy greedy,” in AAAI, 2015, pp. 1812–1818. 4, 6, 19

    2015

  55. [63]

    Submodular batch selection for training deep neural networks,

    K. Joseph, K. Singh, and V . N. Balasubramanian, “Submodular batch selection for training deep neural networks,” in IJCAI, 2019, pp. 2677–

    2019

  56. [64]

    Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra,

    J. Edmonds, “Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra,” Combinatorial Structures and Their Applications, pp. 69–87, 1970. 4

    1970

  57. [65]

    SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods,

    R. Achanta, A. Shaji, K. Smith, A. Lucchi, P. Fua, and S. S ¨usstrunk, “SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2274–2282, 2012. 5, 8

    2012

  58. [66]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Dollar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 4015–4026. 5, 8, 12, 23

    2023

  59. [67]

    Unsupervised learning of visual representa- tions by solving jigsaw puzzles,

    M. Noroozi and P. Favaro, “Unsupervised learning of visual representa- tions by solving jigsaw puzzles,” in ECCV, 2016, pp. 69–84. 5

    2016

  60. [68]

    Learn to threshold: Thresholdnet with confidence-guided manifold mixup for polyp segmentation,

    X. Guo, C. Yang, Y . Liu, and Y . Yuan, “Learn to threshold: Thresholdnet with confidence-guided manifold mixup for polyp segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1134–1146, 2020. 5

    2020

  61. [69]

    Test-time prompt tuning for zero-shot generalization in vision-language models,

    M. Shu, W. Nie, D.-A. Huang, Z. Yu, T. Goldstein, A. Anandkumar, and C. Xiao, “Test-time prompt tuning for zero-shot generalization in vision-language models,” in NeurIPS, 2022, pp. 14 274–14 289. 5

    2022

  62. [70]

    Handling open-set noise and novel target recognition in domain adaptive semantic segmentation,

    X. Guo, J. Liu, T. Liu, and Y . Yuan, “Handling open-set noise and novel target recognition in domain adaptive semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 9846–9861, 2023. 5

    2023

  63. [71]

    Cosface: Large margin cosine loss for deep face recognition,

    H. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Zhou, X. Ji, D. Gong, J. Zhou, Z. Li, and W. Liu, “Cosface: Large margin cosine loss for deep face recognition,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 5265–5274. 6

    2018

  64. [72]

    Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,

    J. Deng, J. Guo, N. Xue, and S. Zafeiriou, “Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 4690–4699. 6, 8

    2019

  65. [73]

    Submodularity in data subset selection and active learning,

    K. Wei, R. Iyer, and J. Bilmes, “Submodularity in data subset selection and active learning,” in ICML, 2015, pp. 1954–1963. 6

    2015

  66. [74]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778. 8, 10, 11, 14, 19

    2016

  67. [75]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in ICLR, 2021. 8, 11

    2021

  68. [76]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted win- dows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted win- dows,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022. 8, 11, 19

    2021

  69. [77]

    Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,

    L. Zhu, B. Liao, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,” in ICML, 2024. 8, 11, 19

    2024

  70. [78]

    MambaVision: A hybrid mamba- transformer vision backbone,

    A. Hatamizadeh and J. Kautz, “MambaVision: A hybrid mamba- transformer vision backbone,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08083 , 2024. 8, 11, 19

    2024

  71. [79]

    MobileNetV2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L.-C. Chen, “MobileNetV2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 4510–4520. 8, 14

    2018

  72. [80]

    EfficientNetV2: Smaller models and faster training,

    M. Tan and Q. Le, “EfficientNetV2: Smaller models and faster training,” in ICML, 2021, pp. 10 096–10 106. 8, 14

    2021

  73. [81]

    Evaluating and aggregating feature-based model explanations,

    U. Bhatt, A. Weller, and J. M. Moura, “Evaluating and aggregating feature-based model explanations,” in IJCAI, 2021, pp. 3016–3022. 9

    2021

  74. [82]

    Instance-wise or class-wise? a tale of neighbor shapley for concept- based explanation,

    J. Li, K. Kuang, L. Li, L. Chen, S. Zhang, J. Shao, and J. Xiao, “Instance-wise or class-wise? a tale of neighbor shapley for concept- based explanation,” in ACM MM, 2021, pp. 3664–3672. 9

    2021

  75. [83]

    Foundation models for music: A survey,

    Y . Ma, A. Øland, A. Ragni, B. M. Del Sette, C. Saitis, C. Donahue, C. Lin, C. Plachouras, E. Benetos, E. Quinton et al., “Foundation models for music: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14340, 2024. 12

    2024

  76. [84]

    A benchmark for interpretability methods in deep neural networks,

    S. Hooker, D. Erhan, P.-J. Kindermans, and B. Kim, “A benchmark for interpretability methods in deep neural networks,” in NeurIPS, 2019, pp. 9734–9745. 12

    2019

  77. [85]

    Not just a black box: Learning important features through propagating activation differences,

    A. Shrikumar, P. Greenside, A. Shcherbina, and A. Kundaje, “Not just a black box: Learning important features through propagating activation differences,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01713, 2016. 12

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise,

    D. Smilkov, N. Thorat, B. Kim, F. Vi ´egas, and M. Wattenberg, “SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03825, 2017. 12

    2017 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Noise-adding methods of saliency map as series of higher order partial derivative,

    J. Seo, J. Choe, J. Koo, S. Jeon, B. Kim, and T. Jeon, “Noise-adding methods of saliency map as series of higher order partial derivative,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03000, 2018. 12

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Towards better understanding of gradient-based attribution methods for deep neural networks,

    M. Ancona, E. Ceolini, C. ¨Oztireli, and M. Gross, “Towards better understanding of gradient-based attribution methods for deep neural networks,” in ICLR, 2018. 12

    2018

  81. [89]

    Look at the variance! efficient black-box explanations with sobol-based sensitivity analysis,

    T. Fel, R. Cad `ene, M. Chalvidal, M. Cord, D. Vigouroux, and T. Serre, “Look at the variance! efficient black-box explanations with sobol-based sensitivity analysis,” in NeurIPS, 2021, pp. 26 005–26 014. 12

    2021

  82. [90]

    Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep taylor decom- position,

    G. Montavon, S. Lapuschkin, A. Binder, W. Samek, and K.-R. M ¨uller, “Explaining nonlinear classification decisions with deep taylor decom- position,” Pattern recognition, vol. 65, pp. 211–222, 2017. 18 Ruoyu Chen is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in the School of C...

    2017

  83. [91]

    We compare with RISE [23] and HSIC- Attribution [9] methods, showing the advantages of our method

    [27] on the ImageNet dataset. We compare with RISE [23] and HSIC- Attribution [9] methods, showing the advantages of our method. B.2 Visualization on ResNet-101 Fig. 13 presents interpretable attribution results for single-modal ResNet- 101 [73] on the ImageNet dataset. We com...

    2011

  84. [92]

    [9] Fig. 12. Additional interpretation visualization for CLIP (ResNet-101) on the ImageNet dataset. Half-track Half-track Monastery Monastery Jacamar Jacamar Yorkshire TerrierYorkshire Terrier Half-track Yorkshire Terrier Jacamar Monastery HSIC-AttributionOurs (w/ SEEDS)RISE R...

  85. [93]

    [9] Fig. 13. Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal ResNet-101 on the ImageNet dataset. 22 ViT(Large)HSIC-Attribution Ours (w/ SLICO)Swin-Transformer (Large) HSIC-Attribution Ours (w/ SLICO) Vulture Vulture Marmot Marmot Common Sorrel HorseCommon Sorrel Horse...

  86. [94]

    [9] Fig. 14. Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal vision transformer (Large) and swin-transformer (Large) on the ImageNet dataset. Vision Mamba(base)HSIC-AttributionOurs (w/ SLICO)MambaVision(L2)HSIC-AttributionOurs (w/ SLICO) Ox Ox Shopping BasketShopping ...

  87. [95]

    [9] Fig. 15. Additional interpretation visualization for single-modal vision mamba (base) and mambavision (L2) on the ImageNet dataset. Incorrect Prediction: Tree SparrowGround Truth: Lazuli Bunting Previous VersionPrevious Version Ours (w/ SEEDS) Previous VersionPrevious Vers...

  88. [96]

    [8] [9] [8] Fig. 16. Visualization of the method for discovering what causes model prediction errors on the CUB-200-2011 dataset. The first row shows the results of the HSIC-Attribution method and the previous version method, and the second row shows the results of the current...

    2011

  89. [97]

    [39] [9] Fig. 17. Visualization of the method for discovering what causes model prediction errors on the CUB-200-2011 dataset. The first row shows the results of the HSIC-Attribution method and the previous version method, and the second row shows the results of the current ve...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed May 22, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.