Papers › Exploring Interpretability for Visual Prompt Tuning with Hierarchical Concepts

Exploring Interpretability for Visual Prompt Tuning with Hierarchical Concepts

8 Mar 2025arXiv:2503.06084archive 2025-07-28

Yubin Wang, Xinyang Jiang, De Cheng, Xiangqian Zhao, Zilong Wang, Dongsheng Li, Cairong Zhao

Visual prompt tuning offers significant advantages for adapting pre-trained visual foundation models to specific tasks. However, current research provides limited insight into the interpretability of this approach, which is essential for enhancing AI reliability and enabling AI-driven knowledge discovery. In this paper, rather than learning abstract prompt embeddings, we propose the first framework, named Interpretable Visual Prompt Tuning (IVPT), to explore interpretability for visual prompts, by introducing hierarchical concept prototypes. Specifically, visual prompts are linked to human-understandable semantic concepts, represented as a set of category-agnostic prototypes, each corresponding to a specific region of the image. Then, IVPT aggregates features from these regions to generate interpretable prompts, which are structured hierarchically to explain visual prompts at different granularities. Comprehensive qualitative and quantitative evaluations on fine-grained classification benchmarks show its superior interpretability and performance over conventional visual prompt tuning methods and existing interpretable methods.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ThomasWangY/IVPT. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections