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

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

Post-training quantization (PTQ) reduces a model's memory footprint by mapping full precision weights into low bit weights without costly retraining, but can degrade its downstream performance especially in low 2- to 3-bit settings. We develop a new mixed-precision PTQ approach, Task-Circuit Quantization (TaCQ), that draws parallels to automated circuit discovery, directly conditioning the quantization process on specific weight circuits -- which we define as sets of weights associated with downstream task performance. These weights are kept as 16-bit weights, while others are quantized, maintaining performance while only adding a marginal memory cost. Specifically, TaCQ contrasts unquantized model weights with a uniformly-quantized model to estimate the expected change in weights due to quantization and uses gradient information to predict the resulting impact on task performance, allowing us to preserve task-specific weights. We compare TaCQ-based quantization to existing mixed-precision quantization methods when conditioning both on general-purpose and task-specific data. Across QA, math reasoning, and text-to-SQL tasks for both Llama-3 and Qwen2.5, we find that TaCQ outperforms baselines using the same calibration data and a lower weight budget, achieving major improvements in the 2 and 3-bit regime. With only 3.1 bits we are able to recover 96% of Llama-3-8B-Instruct's unquantized 16-bit MMLU performance, obtaining a 5.25% absolute improvement over SPQR. We also observe consistently large gains over existing methods in the 2-bit regime, with an average gain of 14.74% over the strongest baseline, SliM-LLM. Moreover, we observe a 7.20% gain without conditioning on specific tasks, showing TaCQ's ability to identify important weights is not limited to task-conditioned settings.

The paper proposes an approach to learn saliency masks. The proposed approach is based on a neural network and can process multiple images per second (i.e. it is fast). To me the paper is borderline, I would not object rejection or acceptance. I really believe in the concept of learning to explain a model and I think the paper has some good ideas. There are no obvious mistakes but there are clear limitations.

Decision processes of computer vision models - especially deep neural networks - are opaque in nature, meaning that these decisions cannot be understood by humans. Thus, over the last years, many methods to provide human-understandable explanations have been proposed. For image classification, the most common group are saliency methods, which provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. But their evaluation still poses a problem, as their results cannot be simply compared to the unknown ground truth. To overcome this, a slew of different proxy metrics have been defined, which are - as the explainability methods themselves - often built on intuition and thus, are possibly unreliable. In this paper, new evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. In addition, a scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing. The used code can be found at https://github.com/lelo204/ClassificationMetricsForImageExplanations .

Despite Convolutional Neural Networks having reached human-level performance in some medical tasks, their clinical use has been hindered by their lack of interpretability. Two major interpretability strategies have been proposed to tackle this problem: post-hoc methods and intrinsic methods. Although there are several post-hoc methods to interpret DL models, there is significant variation between the explanations provided by each method, and it a difficult to validate them due to the lack of ground-truth. To address this challenge, we adapted the intrinsical interpretable ProtoPNet for the context of histopathology imaging and compared the attribution maps produced by it and the saliency maps made by post-hoc methods. To evaluate the similarity between saliency map methods and attribution maps we adapted 10 saliency metrics from the saliency model literature, and used the breast cancer metastases detection dataset PatchCamelyon with 327,680 patches of histopathological images of sentinel lymph node sections to validate the proposed approach. Overall, SmoothGrad and Occlusion were found to have a statistically bigger overlap with ProtoPNet while Deconvolution and Lime have been found to have the least.

The computation and memory needed for Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) inference can be reduced by pruning weights from the trained network. Pruning is guided by a pruning saliency, which heuristically approximates the change in the loss function associated with the removal of specific weights. Many pruning signals have been proposed, but the performance of each heuristic depends on the particular trained network. This leaves the data scientist with a difficult choice. When using any one saliency metric for the entire pruning process, we run the risk of the metric assumptions being invalidated, leading to poor decisions being made by the metric. Ideally we could combine the best aspects of different saliency metrics. However, despite an extensive literature review, we are unable to find any prior work on composing different saliency metrics. The chief difficulty lies in combining the numerical output of different saliency metrics, which are not directly comparable. We propose a method to compose several primitive pruning saliencies, to exploit the cases where each saliency measure does well. Our experiments show that the composition of saliencies avoids many poor pruning choices identified by individual saliencies. In most cases our method finds better selections than even the best individual pruning saliency.

Saliency maps are a popular approach to creating post-hoc explanations of image classifier outputs. These methods produce estimates of the relevance of each pixel to the classification output score, which can be displayed as a saliency map that highlights important pixels. Despite a proliferation of such methods, little effort has been made to quantify how good these saliency maps are at capturing the true relevance of the pixels to the classifier output (i.e. their "fidelity"). We therefore investigate existing metrics for evaluating the fidelity of saliency methods (i.e. saliency metrics). We find that there is little consistency in the literature in how such metrics are calculated, and show that such inconsistencies can have a significant effect on the measured fidelity. Further, we apply measures of reliability developed in the psychometric testing literature to assess the consistency of saliency metrics when applied to individual saliency maps. Our results show that saliency metrics can be statistically unreliable and inconsistent, indicating that comparative rankings between saliency methods generated using such metrics can be untrustworthy.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are widely used for classification problems. However, they often require large amounts of computation and memory which are not readily available in resource constrained systems. Pruning unimportant parameters from CNNs to reduce these requirements has been a subject of intensive research in recent years. However, novel approaches in pruning signals are sometimes difficult to compare against each other. We propose a taxonomy that classifies pruning signals based on four mostly-orthogonal components of the signal. We also empirically evaluate 396 pruning signals including existing ones, and new signals constructed from the components of existing signals. We find that some of our newly constructed signals outperform the best existing pruning signals.