A Simple Saliency Method That Passes the Sanity Checks
This addresses the reliability of explanation methods for deep learning models, though it is incremental as it modifies existing approaches rather than introducing a new paradigm.
The paper tackles the problem that many saliency methods fail sanity checks by randomizing network layers or labels, and proposes a simple fix called 'competition for pixels' that helps these methods pass such checks, with empirical demonstration of its performance.
There is great interest in "saliency methods" (also called "attribution methods"), which give "explanations" for a deep net's decision, by assigning a "score" to each feature/pixel in the input. Their design usually involves credit-assignment via the gradient of the output with respect to input. Recently Adebayo et al. [arXiv:1810.03292] questioned the validity of many of these methods since they do not pass simple *sanity checks* which test whether the scores shift/vanish when layers of the trained net are randomized, or when the net is retrained using random labels for inputs. We propose a simple fix to existing saliency methods that helps them pass sanity checks, which we call "competition for pixels". This involves computing saliency maps for all possible labels in the classification task, and using a simple competition among them to identify and remove less relevant pixels from the map. The simplest variant of this is "Competitive Gradient $\odot$ Input (CGI)": it is efficient, requires no additional training, and uses only the input and gradient. Some theoretical justification is provided for it (especially for ReLU networks) and its performance is empirically demonstrated.