Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Learning Support and Trivial Prototypes for Interpretable Image Classification

About

Prototypical part network (ProtoPNet) methods have been designed to achieve interpretable classification by associating predictions with a set of training prototypes, which we refer to as trivial prototypes because they are trained to lie far from the classification boundary in the feature space. Note that it is possible to make an analogy between ProtoPNet and support vector machine (SVM) given that the classification from both methods relies on computing similarity with a set of training points (i.e., trivial prototypes in ProtoPNet, and support vectors in SVM). However, while trivial prototypes are located far from the classification boundary, support vectors are located close to this boundary, and we argue that this discrepancy with the well-established SVM theory can result in ProtoPNet models with inferior classification accuracy. In this paper, we aim to improve the classification of ProtoPNet with a new method to learn support prototypes that lie near the classification boundary in the feature space, as suggested by the SVM theory. In addition, we target the improvement of classification results with a new model, named ST-ProtoPNet, which exploits our support prototypes and the trivial prototypes to provide more effective classification. Experimental results on CUB-200-2011, Stanford Cars, and Stanford Dogs datasets demonstrate that ST-ProtoPNet achieves state-of-the-art classification accuracy and interpretability results. We also show that the proposed support prototypes tend to be better localised in the object of interest rather than in the background region.

Chong Wang, Yuyuan Liu, Yuanhong Chen, Fengbei Liu, Yu Tian, Davis J. McCarthy, Helen Frazer, Gustavo Carneiro• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Image ClassificationStanford Cars
Accuracy85.8
635
Image ClassificationCUB-200 2011
Accuracy83.9
356
Image ClassificationCUB-200-2011 (test)
Top-1 Acc81.84
286
Image ClassificationCaltech101 (test)
Accuracy97.17
159
Image ClassificationCaltech101
Base Accuracy96.24
129
Image ClassificationCUB-200 (test)
Accuracy86.6
98
Image ClassificationCUB200
Accuracy86.1
42
ClassificationAWA2 (test)--
22
Image ClassificationDogs-120 (test)
Top-1 Accuracy84
10
Image ClassificationAWA2 (unseen)
Accuracy30.15
6
Showing 10 of 10 rows

Other info

Follow for update