arXiv:2411. 08875v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing algorithms for explaining the output of image classifiers use different definitions of explanations and a variety of techniques to find them.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
The paper introduces a new framework for generating medical image counterfactuals that does not rely on auxiliary generative models. By extracting causal evidence directly from a classifier, the method deterministically produces edits within user-specified regions, requiring no additional training. Experiments on real-world medical imaging datasets show that these counterfactuals alter classifier predictions while staying closer to the original image than generative baselines, offering a clearer view of the model’s decision boundary.
arXiv:2507. 09092v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the intervention of machine vision in our crucial day to day necessities including healthcare and automated power plants, attention has been drawn to the internal mechanisms of convolutional neural networks, and the reason why the network provides specific inferences.
The paper introduces a new method for generating medical image counterfactuals that does not rely on auxiliary generative models. By extracting causal evidence directly from the classifier, the approach deterministically edits user-specified regions to alter predictions while staying closer to the original image than generative baselines. Experiments on real-world medical imaging datasets show that this technique provides a more direct and transparent view of the classifier’s decision boundary.
arXiv:2609.26037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explanations are central to causal reasoning, and cognitive science has long established that the human drive to explain is itself a mechanism for lear...
arXiv:2608. 03772v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explaining the predictions of neural networks is a central challenge in trustworthy AI.
The paper introduces a synthetic ground‑truth framework for evaluating explainable AI (XAI) methods, addressing the lack of reliable evaluation procedures. By using controlled interventions to create datasets where the importance of input components is known, the framework generates ground‑truth explanations that align with the model’s actual decision process. The authors apply this approach to binary images, tabular data, and time series, and find that nine popular XAI methods exhibit significant limitations, underscoring the need for intervention‑based benchmarks.