IC-447CLIP ViT-B/16 produces noisy saliency maps and contains only 42 concept detectors, indicating poor visual interpretability

Report a problem with this record

Shizhan Gong, Haoyu LEI, Qi Dou, Farzan Farnia

SourceBoosting the visual interpretability of CLIP via adversarial fine-tuning

The paper measures the visual interpretability of the original CLIP ViT-B/16 image encoder using multiple feature attribution methods and network dissection. Simple gradient saliency maps are described as 'largely stochastic without highlighting any meaningful patterns,' and Grad-CAM maps suffer from 'background noise interference.' Quantitatively, the pointing game score is 25.77 for simple gradients and 51.00 for Grad-CAM on the ImageNet-Segmentation validation set. Network dissection via CLIP-Dissect reveals only 42 concept detectors in the [CLS] token of the last layer, compared to 159 after AFT. The authors attribute this to the non-smoothness induced by false negatives during contrastive training and the inherent nature of the ViT architecture.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
PG 25.77 (SG), 51.00 (GC) on ImageNet-Segmentation; 42 concept detectors (Figure 1); PG-energy 31.32 (SG), 43.71 (GC); pixel acc. 65.51 (SG), 61.79 (GC)
Caveat
The paper notes that more advanced attribution methods (M2IB, Grad-ECLIP) already produce better saliency maps on the original CLIP, so the poor interpretability is most evident with basic gradient-based methods.
Model
CLIP / CLIP-ViT (LC)
Datasets
ImageNet-1k / ImageNet / ImageNet-1k-val / ImageNet-Val [eval], ImageNet-Segmentation [eval], BRODEN [eval], ImageNetette [eval], Caltech-256 [eval]
Methods
Simple Gradient [primary], Grad-CAM [primary], Pointing game [eval], CLIP-Dissect [eval], Network Dissection [eval], M2IB [compared-to], Grad-ECLIP [compared-to], ROAR [validation]
Related findings
IC-448, IC-449, IC-450
Extraction
automatic-extraction