Saliency methods have emerged as a popular tool to highlight features in an input deemed relevant for the prediction of a learned model. Several saliency methods have been proposed, often guided by visual appeal on image data. In this work, we propose an actionable methodology to evaluate what kinds of explanations a given method can and cannot provide. We find that reliance, solely, on visual assessment can be misleading. Through extensive experiments we show that some existing saliency methods are independent both of the model and of the data generating process. Consequently, methods that fail the proposed tests are inadequate for tasks that are sensitive to either data or model, such as, finding outliers in the data, explaining the relationship between inputs and outputs that the model learned, and debugging the model. We interpret our findings through an analogy with edge detection in images, a technique that requires neither training data nor model. Theory in the case of a linear model and a single-layer convolutional neural network supports our experimental findings.

Deep neural network (DNN) based salient object detection in images based on high-quality labels is expensive. Alternative unsupervised approaches rely on careful selection of multiple handcrafted saliency methods to generate noisy pseudo-ground-truth labels. In this work, we propose a two-stage mechanism for robust unsupervised object saliency prediction, where the first stage involves refinement of the noisy pseudo labels generated from different handcrafted methods. Each handcrafted method is substituted by a deep network that learns to generate the pseudo labels. These labels are refined incrementally in multiple iterations via our proposed self-supervision technique. In the second stage, the refined labels produced from multiple networks representing multiple saliency methods are used to train the actual saliency detection network. We show that this self-learning procedure outperforms all the existing unsupervised methods over different datasets. Results are even comparable to those of fully-supervised state-of-the-art approaches.

While deep reinforcement learning agents demonstrate high performance across domains, their internal decision processes remain difficult to interp ret when evaluated only through performance metrics. In particular, it is poorly understoo d which input features agents rely on, how these dependencies evolve during training, and how t hey relate to behavior. We introduce a scientific methodology for analyzing the learni ng process through quantitative analysis of saliency. This approach aggregates saliency in formation at the object and modality level into hierarchical attention profiles, quantifyin g how agents allocate attention over time, thereby forming attention trajectories throughout t raining. Applied to Atari benchmarks, custom Pong environments, and muscle-actuated biom echanical user simulations in visuomotor interactive tasks, this methodology uncovers a lgorithm-specific attention biases, reveals unintended reward-driven strategies, and diagnos es overfitting to redundant sensory channels. These patterns correspond to measurable behavio ral differences, demonstrating empirical links between attention profiles, learning dynam ics, and agent behavior. To assess robustness of the attention profiles, we validate our finding s across multiple saliency methods and environments. The results establish attention traj ectories as a promising diagnostic axis for tracing how feature reliance develops during train ing and for identifying biases and vulnerabilities invisible to performance metrics alone.

Saliency methods have emerged as a popular tool to highlight features in an input deemed relevant for the prediction of a learned model. Several saliency methods have been proposed, often guided by visual appeal on image data. In this work, we propose an actionable methodology to evaluate what kinds of explanations a given method can and cannot provide. We find that reliance, solely, on visual assessment can be misleading. Through extensive experiments we show that some existing saliency methods are independent both of the model and of the data generating process. Consequently, methods that fail the proposed tests are inadequate for tasks that are sensitive to either data or model, such as, finding outliers in the data, explaining the relationship between inputs and outputs that the model learned, and debugging the model. We interpret our findings through an analogy with edge detection in images, a technique that requires neither training data nor model. Theory in the case of a linear model and a single-layer convolutional neural network supports our experimental findings.

Through extensive experiments we show that some existing saliency methods are independent both of the model and of the data generating process.

Most existing methods use backpropagation on a modified gradient function to generate saliency maps. Thus, noisy gradients can result in unfaithful feature attributions.

We experimentally evaluate the usefulness of FullGrad in explaining model behaviour with two quantitative tests: pixel perturbation and remove-and-retrain. Our experiments reveal that our method explains model behavior correctly, and more comprehensively, than other methods in the literature.

In many real-world scenarios, the presence of an object, its location and appearance are highly correlated with the contextual information surrounding this object, such as the presence of other nearby objects or more global scene semantics. For example, in the case of an urban street scene, a cyclist is more likely to co-occur on a bicycle and a car to appear on the road below sky and buildings (cf.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Deep neural network (DNN) based salient object detection in images based on high-quality labels is expensive. Alternative unsupervised approaches rely on careful selection of multiple handcrafted saliency methods to generate noisy pseudo-ground-truth labels.