Papers › Less is More: Fewer Interpretable Region via Submodular Subset Selection

Less is More: Fewer Interpretable Region via Submodular Subset Selection

14 Feb 2024arXiv:2402.09164archive 2025-07-28

Ruoyu Chen, Hua Zhang, Siyuan Liang, Jingzhi Li, Xiaochun Cao

Image attribution algorithms aim to identify important regions that are highly relevant to model decisions. Although existing attribution solutions can effectively assign importance to target elements, they still face the following challenges: 1) existing attribution methods generate inaccurate small regions thus misleading the direction of correct attribution, and 2) the model cannot produce good attribution results for samples with wrong predictions. To address the above challenges, this paper re-models the above image attribution problem as a submodular subset selection problem, aiming to enhance model interpretability using fewer regions. To address the lack of attention to local regions, we construct a novel submodular function to discover more accurate small interpretation regions. To enhance the attribution effect for all samples, we also impose four different constraints on the selection of sub-regions, i.e., confidence, effectiveness, consistency, and collaboration scores, to assess the importance of various subsets. Moreover, our theoretical analysis substantiates that the proposed function is in fact submodular. Extensive experiments show that the proposed method outperforms SOTA methods on two face datasets (Celeb-A and VGG-Face2) and one fine-grained dataset (CUB-200-2011). For correctly predicted samples, the proposed method improves the Deletion and Insertion scores with an average of 4.9% and 2.5% gain relative to HSIC-Attribution. For incorrectly predicted samples, our method achieves gains of 81.0% and 18.4% compared to the HSIC-Attribution algorithm in the average highest confidence and Insertion score respectively. The code is released at https://github.com/RuoyuChen10/SMDL-Attribution.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2402.09164")

Code

Syntology Ran 3 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

ruoyuchen10/smdl-attribution officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

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

3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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.

1ran · our draft was wrong
2ran

Licence: 3 of the 3 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 ruoyuchen10/smdl-attribution. “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.

MultiModalSubModularExplanation ruoyuchen10/smdl-attribution/models/submodular_vit_efficient.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · da8697bef999a4ea · report
MultiModalSubModularExplanationEfficientV1 ruoyuchen10/smdl-attribution/models/submodular_vit_efficient.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · 11a6722521b17c5e · report
Partition_by_patch RuoyuChen10/SMDL-Attribution/submodular_attribution/smdl_explanation_celeba.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · 4e71c97a79591777 · report

Tasks

Error UnderstandingImage AttributionInterpretability Techniques for Deep Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Average highest confidence (EfficientNetV2-M) 0.3306 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Average highest confidence (MobileNetV2) 0.5367 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Average highest confidence (ResNet-101) 0.4513 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (EfficientNetV2-M) 0.1748 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (MobileNetV2) 0.1922 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Error Understanding CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (ResNet-101) 0.1772 #1 of 4 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Deletion AUC score (ResNet-101) 0.0613 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution CUB-200-2011 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (ResNet-101) 0.7262 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution CelebA SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Deletion AUC score (ArcFace ResNet-101) 0.1054 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution CelebA SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (ArcFace ResNet-101) 0.5752 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution VGGFace2 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Deletion AUC score (ArcFace ResNet-101) 0.1304 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report
Image Attribution VGGFace2 SMDL-Attribution (ICLR version) Insertion AUC score (ArcFace ResNet-101) 0.6705 #1 of 8 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Methods

CAM

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