Why context matters in VQA and Reasoning: Semantic interventions for VLM input modalities

The various limitations of Generative AI, such as hallucinations and model failures, have made it crucial to understand the role of different modalities in Visual Language Model (VLM) predictions. Our work investigates how the integration of information from image and text modalities influences the performance and behavior of VLMs in visual question answering (VQA) and reasoning tasks. We measure this effect through answer accuracy, reasoning quality, model uncertainty, and modality relevance. We study the interplay between text and image modalities in different configurations where visual content is essential for solving the VQA task. Our contributions include (1) the Semantic Interventions (SI)-VQA dataset, (2) a benchmark study of various VLM architectures under different modality configurations, and (3) the Interactive Semantic Interventions (ISI) tool. The SI-VQA dataset serves as the foundation for the benchmark, while the ISI tool provides an interface to test and apply semantic interventions in image and text inputs, enabling more fine-grained analysis. Our results show that complementary information between modalities improves answer and reasoning quality, while contradictory information harms model performance and confidence. Image text annotations have minimal impact on accuracy and uncertainty, slightly increasing image relevance. Attention analysis confirms the dominant role of image inputs over text in VQA tasks. In this study, we evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs that allow us to extract attention coefficients for each modality. A key finding is PaliGemma's harmful overconfidence, which poses a higher risk of silent failures compared to the LLaVA models. This work sets the foundation for rigorous analysis of modality integration, supported by datasets specifically designed for this purpose.

Navigating the Maze of Explainable AI: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Methods and Metrics

Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics. We systematically incorporate vital design parameters like varied architectures and diverse input modalities, resulting in 7,560 examined combinations. Through LATEC, we showcase the high risk of conflicting metrics leading to unreliable rankings and consequently propose a more robust evaluation scheme. Further, we comprehensively evaluate various XAI methods to assist practitioners in selecting appropriate methods aligning with their needs. Curiously, the emerging top-performing method, Expected Gradients, is not examined in any relevant related study. LATEC reinforces its role in future XAI research by publicly releasing all 326k saliency maps and 378k metric scores as a (meta-)evaluation dataset.

Enhancing predictive imaging biomarker discovery through treatment effect analysis

Identifying predictive biomarkers, which forecast individual treatment effectiveness, is crucial for personalized medicine and informs decision-making across diverse disciplines. These biomarkers are extracted from pre-treatment data, often within randomized controlled trials, and have to be distinguished from prognostic biomarkers, which are independent of treatment assignment. Our study focuses on the discovery of predictive imaging biomarkers, aiming to leverage pre-treatment images to unveil new causal relationships. Previous approaches relied on labor-intensive handcrafted or manually derived features, which may introduce biases. In response, we present a new task of discovering predictive imaging biomarkers directly from the pre-treatment images to learn relevant image features. We propose an evaluation protocol for this task to assess a model's ability to identify predictive imaging biomarkers and differentiate them from prognostic ones. It employs statistical testing and a comprehensive analysis of image feature attribution. We explore the suitability of deep learning models originally designed for estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) for this task, which previously have been primarily assessed for the precision of CATE estimation, overlooking the evaluation of imaging biomarker discovery. Our proof-of-concept analysis demonstrates promising results in discovering and validating predictive imaging biomarkers from synthetic outcomes and real-world image datasets.

Improving Explainability of Disentangled Representations using Multipath-Attribution Mappings

Explainable AI aims to render model behavior understandable by humans, which can be seen as an intermediate step in extracting causal relations from correlative patterns. Due to the high risk of possible fatal decisions in image-based clinical diagnostics, it is necessary to integrate explainable AI into these safety-critical systems. Current explanatory methods typically assign attribution scores to pixel regions in the input image, indicating their importance for a model's decision. However, they fall short when explaining why a visual feature is used. We propose a framework that utilizes interpretable disentangled representations for downstream-task prediction. Through visualizing the disentangled representations, we enable experts to investigate possible causation effects by leveraging their domain knowledge. Additionally, we deploy a multi-path attribution mapping for enriching and validating explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a synthetic benchmark suite and two medical datasets. We show that the framework not only acts as a catalyst for causal relation extraction but also enhances model robustness by enabling shortcut detection without the need for testing under distribution shifts.

Toward Realistic Evaluation of Deep Active Learning Algorithms in Image Classification

Active Learning (AL) aims to reduce the labeling burden by interactively querying the most informative observations from a data pool. Despite extensive research on improving AL query methods in the past years, recent studies have questioned the advantages of AL, especially in the light of emerging alternative training paradigms such as semi-supervised (Semi-SL) and self-supervised learning (Self-SL). Thus, today's AL literature paints an inconsistent picture and leaves practitioners wondering whether and how to employ AL in their tasks. We argue that this heterogeneous landscape is caused by a lack of a systematic and realistic evaluation of AL algorithms, including key parameters such as complex and imbalanced datasets, realistic labeling scenarios, systematic method configuration, and integration of Semi-SL and Self-SL. To this end, we present an AL benchmarking suite and run extensive experiments on five datasets shedding light on the questions: when and how to apply AL?

A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification

Reliable application of machine learning-based decision systems in the wild is one of the major challenges currently investigated by the field. A large portion of established approaches aims to detect erroneous predictions by means of assigning confidence scores. This confidence may be obtained by either quantifying the model's predictive uncertainty, learning explicit scoring functions, or assessing whether the input is in line with the training distribution. Curiously, while these approaches all state to address the same eventual goal of detecting failures of a classifier upon real-life application, they currently constitute largely separated research fields with individual evaluation protocols, which either exclude a substantial part of relevant methods or ignore large parts of relevant failure sources. In this work, we systematically reveal current pitfalls caused by these inconsistencies and derive requirements for a holistic and realistic evaluation of failure detection. To demonstrate the relevance of this unified perspective, we present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions w.r.t all relevant methods and failure sources. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation in the abundance of publicized research on confidence scoring. Code and trained models are at https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/fd-shifts.

From Correlation to Causation: Formalizing Interpretable Machine Learning as a Statistical Process

Explainable AI (XAI) is a necessity in safety-critical systems such as in clinical diagnostics due to a high risk for fatal decisions. Currently, however, XAI resembles a loose collection of methods rather than a well-defined process. In this work, we elaborate on conceptual similarities between the largest subgroup of XAI, interpretable machine learning (IML), and classical statistics. Based on these similarities, we present a formalization of IML along the lines of a statistical process. Adopting this statistical view allows us to interpret machine learning models and IML methods as sophisticated statistical tools. Based on this interpretation, we infer three key questions, which we identify as crucial for the success and adoption of IML in safety-critical settings. By formulating these questions, we further aim to spark a discussion about what distinguishes IML from classical statistics and what our perspective implies for the future of the field.