Do explanations make VQA models more predictable to a human?

By Arjun Chandrasekaran, Viraj Prabhu, Deshraj Yadav, Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, Devi Parikh. 2018

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A rich line of research attempts to make deep neural networks more transparent by generating human-interpretable ‘explanations’ of their decision process, especially for interactive tasks like Visual Question Answering (VQA). In this work, we analyze if existing explanations indeed make a VQA model — its responses as well as failures — more predictable to a human. Surprisingly, we find that they do not. On the other hand, we find that human-in-the-loop approaches that treat the model as a black-box do.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Multimodal Learning

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Mohit Bansal
  2. Yejin Choi
  3. Noah A. Smith
  4. Luke S. Zettlemoyer
  5. Percy Liang
  6. Graham Neubig
  7. Hannaneh Hajishirzi
  8. Jianfeng Gao

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  1. Mohit Bansal
  2. Song-Chun Zhu
  3. Luc Van Gool
  4. Trevor Darrell
  5. Dacheng Tao
  6. Ming-Hsuan Yang
  7. Alan L. Yuille
  8. Yejin Choi

In Multimodal Learning

  1. Robik Shrestha
  2. Christopher Kanan
  3. Ali Farhadi
  4. Kushal Kafle
  5. Rowan Zellers
  6. Yejin Choi
  7. Yonatan Bisk
  8. Noah A. Smith

Citations in the corpus