Neuron interpretation offers valuable insights into how knowledge is structured within a deep neural network model.

Neuron interpretation offers valuable insights into how knowledge is structured within a deep neural network model. While a number of neuron interpretation methods have been proposed in the literature, the field lacks a comprehensive comparison among these methods. This gap hampers progress due to the absence of standardized metrics and benchmarks. The commonly used evaluation metric has limitations, and creating ground truth annotations for neurons is impractical. Addressing these challenges, we propose an evaluation framework based on voting theory. Our hypothesis posits that neurons consistently identified by different methods carry more significant information. We rigorously assess our framework across a diverse array of neuron interpretation methods. Notable findings include: i) despite the theoretical differences among the methods, neuron ranking methods share over 60% of their rankings when identifying salient neurons, ii) the neuron interpretation methods are most sensitive to the last layer representations, iii) Probeless neuron ranking emerges as the most consistent method.

Neuron interpretation offers valuable insights into how knowledge is structured within a deep neural network model. While a number of neuron interpretation methods have been proposed in the literature, the field lacks a comprehensive comparison among these methods. This gap hampers progress due to the absence of standardized metrics and benchmarks. The commonly used evaluation metric has limitations, and creating ground truth annotations for neurons is impractical. Addressing these challenges, we propose an evaluation framework based on voting theory.

Neuron Interpretation has gained traction in the field of interpretability, and have provided fine-grained insights into what a model learns and how language knowledge is distributed amongst its different components. However, the lack of evaluation benchmark and metrics have led to siloed progress within these various methods, with very little work comparing them and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The reason for this discrepancy is the difficulty of creating ground truth datasets, for example, many neurons within a given model may learn the same phenomena, and hence there may not be one correct answer. Moreover, a learned phenomenon may spread across several neurons that work together -- surfacing these to create a gold standard challenging. In this work, we propose an evaluation framework that measures the compatibility of a neuron analysis method with other methods. We hypothesize that the more compatible a method is with the majority of the methods, the more confident one can be about its performance. We systematically evaluate our proposed framework and present a comparative analysis of a large set of neuron interpretation methods. We make the evaluation framework available to the community. It enables the evaluation of any new method using 20 concepts and across three pre-trained models.The code is released at https://github.com/fdalvi/neuron-comparative-analysis