Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

V ISUALIZING D EEP N EURAL N ETWORK D ECISIONS :

P REDICTION D IFFERENCE A NALYSIS
Luisa M Zintgraf1,3 , Taco S Cohen1 , Tameem Adel1 , Max Welling1,2
1
University of Amsterdam, 2 Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, 3 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
{lmzintgraf,tameem.hesham}@gmail.com, {t.s.cohen, m.welling}@uva.nl

A BSTRACT
arXiv:1702.04595v1 [cs.CV] 15 Feb 2017

This article presents the prediction difference analysis method for visualizing the
response of a deep neural network to a specific input. When classifying images,
the method highlights areas in a given input image that provide evidence for or
against a certain class. It overcomes several shortcoming of previous methods and
provides great additional insight into the decision making process of classifiers.
Making neural network decisions interpretable through visualization is important
both to improve models and to accelerate the adoption of black-box classifiers in
application areas such as medicine. We illustrate the method in experiments on
natural images (ImageNet data), as well as medical images (MRI brain scans).

1 I NTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, deep neural networks (DNNs) have emerged as the method of choice for
perceptual tasks such as speech recognition and image classification. In essence, a DNN is a highly
complex non-linear function, which makes it hard to understand how a particular classification comes
about. This lack of transparency is a significant impediment to the adoption of deep learning in areas
of industry, government and healthcare where the cost of errors is high.
In order to realize the societal promise of deep learning - e.g., through self-driving cars or personalized
medicine - it is imperative that classifiers learn to explain their decisions, whether it is in the lab, the
clinic, or the courtroom. In scientific applications, a better understanding of the complex dependencies
learned by deep networks could lead to new insights and theories in poorly understood domains.
In this paper, we present a new, probabilistically sound methodology for explaining classification
decisions made by deep neural networks. The method can be used to produce a saliency map for each
(instance, node) pair that highlights the parts (features) of the input that constitute most evidence for
or against the activation of the given (internal or output) node. See figure 1 for an example.
In the following two sections, we review related work and then present our approach. In section 4 we
provide several demonstrations of our technique for deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs)
trained on ImageNet data, and further how the method can be applied when classifying MRI brain
scans of HIV patients with neurodegenerative disease.

Figure 1: Example of our visualization method: explains why the DCNN (GoogLeNet) predicts "cockatoo".
Shown is the evidence for (red) and against (blue) the prediction. We see that the facial features of the cockatoo
are most supportive for the decision, and parts of the body seem to constitute evidence against it. In fact, the
classifier most likely considers them evidence for the second-highest scoring class, white wolf.

1
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

2 R ELATED W ORK
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches for understanding DCNNs through visualization inves-
tigated in the literature: find an input image that maximally activates a given unit or class score to
visualize what the network is looking for (Erhan et al., 2009; Simonyan et al., 2013; Yosinski et al.,
2015), or visualize how the network responds to a specific input image in order to explain a particular
classification made by the network. The latter will be the subject of this paper.
One such instance-specific method is class saliency visualization proposed by Simonyan et al.
(2013) who measure how sensitive the classification score is to small changes in pixel values, by
computing the partial derivative of the class score with respect to the input features using standard
backpropagation. They also show that there is a close connection to using deconvolutional networks
for visualization, proposed by Zeiler & Fergus (2014). Other methods include Shrikumar et al.
(2016), who compare the activation of a unit when a specific input is fed forward through the net to a
reference activation for that unit. Zhou et al. (2016) and Bach et al. (2015) also generate interesting
visualization results for individual inputs, but are both not as closely related to our method as the two
papers mentioned above. The idea of our method is similar to another analysis Zeiler & Fergus (2014)
make: they estimate the importance of input pixels by visualizing the probability of the (correct) class
as a function of a gray patch occluding parts of the image. In this paper, we take a more rigorous
approach at both removing information from the image and evaluating the effect of this.
In the field of medical image classification specifically, a widely used method for visualizing feature
importances is to simply plot the weights of a linear classifier (Klöppel et al., 2008; Ecker et al.,
2010), or the p-values of these weights (determined by permutation testing) (Mourao-Miranda et al.,
2005; Wang et al., 2007). These are independent of the input image, and, as argued by Gaonkar &
Davatzikos (2013) and Haufe et al. (2014), interpreting these weights can be misleading in general.
The work presented in this paper is based on an instance-specific method by Robnik-Šikonja &
Kononenko (2008), the prediction difference analysis, which is reviewed in the next section. Our
main contributions are three substantial improvements of this method: conditional sampling (section
3.1), multivariate analysis (section 3.2), and deep visualization (section 3.3).

3 A PPROACH
Our method is based on the technique presented by Robnik-Šikonja & Kononenko (2008), which we
will now review. For a given prediction, the method assigns a relevance value to each input feature
with respect to a class c. The basic idea is that the relevance of a feature xi can be estimated by
measuring how the prediction changes if the feature is unknown, i.e., the difference between p(c|x)
and p(c|x\i ), where x\i denotes the set of all input features except xi .
To find p(c|x\i ), i.e., evaluate the prediction when a feature is unknown, the authors propose three
strategies. The first is to label the feature as unknown (which only few classifiers allow). The
second is to re-train the classifier with the feature left out (which is clearly infeasible for DNNs and
high-dimensional data like images). The third approach is to simulate the absence of a feature by
marginalizing the feature:
X
p(c|x\i ) = p(xi |x\i )p(c|x\i , xi ) (1)
xi

(with the sum running over all possible values for xi ). However, modeling p(xi |x\i ) can easily
become infeasible with a large number of features. Therefore, the authors approximate equation (1)
by assuming that feature xi is independent of the other features, x\i :
X
p(c|x\i ) ≈ p(xi )p(c|x\i , xi ) . (2)
xi

The prior probability p(xi ) is usually approximated by the empirical distribution for that feature.
Once the class probability p(c|x\i ) is estimated, it can be compared to p(c|x). We stick to an
evaluation proposed by the authors referred to as weight of evidence, given by


WEi (c|x) = log2 (odds(c|x)) − log2 odds(c|x\i ) , (3)

2
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 2: Simple illustration of the sampling procedure in algorithm 1. Given the input image x, we select
every possible patch xw (in a sliding window fashion) of size k × k and place a larger patch x̂w of size l × l
around it. We can then conditionally sample xw by conditioning on the surrounding patch x̂w .

Algorithm 1 Evaluating the prediction difference using conditional and multivariate sampling
Input: classifier with outputs p(c|x), input image x of size n × n, inner patch size k, outer patch
size l > k, class of interest c, probabilistic model over patches of size l × l, number of samples S
Initialization: WE = zeros(n*n), counts = zeros(n*n)
for every patch xw of size k × k in x do
x0 = copy(x)
sumw = 0
define patch x̂w of size l × l that contains xw
for s = 1 to S do
x0w ← xw sampled from p(xw |x̂w \xw )
sumw += p(c|x0 ) . evaluate classifier
end for
p(c|x\xw ) := sumw /S
WE[coordinates of xw ] += log2 (odds(c|x)) − log2 (odds(c|x\xw ))
counts[coordinates of xw ] += 1
end for
Output: WE / counts . point-wise division

where odds(c|x) = p(c|x)/(1 − p(c|x)). To avoid problems with zero probabilities, Laplace
correction p ← (pN + 1)/(N + K) is used, where N is the number of training instances and K the
number of classes.
The method produces a relevance vector (WEi )i=1...m (m being the number of features) of the same
size as the input, which reflects the relative importance of all features. A large prediction difference
means that the feature contributed substantially to the classification, whereas a small difference
indicates that the feature was not important for the decision. A positive value WEi means that the
feature has contributed evidence for the class of interest: removing it would decrease the confidence
of the classifier in the given class. A negative value on the other hand indicates that the feature
displays evidence against the class: removing it also removes potentially conflicting or irritating
information and the classifier becomes more certain in the investigated class.

3.1 C ONDITIONAL S AMPLING

In equation (3), the conditional probability p(xi |x\i ) of a feature xi is approximated using the
marginal distribution p(xi ). This is a very crude approximation. In images for example, a pixel’s
value is highly dependent on other pixels. We propose a much more accurate approximation, based
on the following two observations: a pixel depends most strongly on a small neighborhood around it,
and the conditional of a pixel given its neighborhood does not depend on the position of the pixel in
the image. For a pixel xi , we can therefore find a patch x̂i of size l × l that contains xi , and condition
on the remaining pixels in that patch:
p(xi |x\i ) ≈ p(xi |x̂\i ) . (4)
This greatly improves the approximation while remaining completely tractable.
For a feature to become relevant when using conditional sampling, it now has to satisfy two conditions:
being relevant to predict the class of interest, and be hard to predict from the neighboring pixels.
Relative to the marginal method, we therefore downweight the pixels that can easily be predicted and
are thus redundant in this sense.

3
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

3.2 M ULTIVARIATE A NALYSIS

Robnik-Šikonja & Kononenko (2008) take a univariate approach: only one feature at a time is
removed. However, we would expect that a neural network is relatively robust to just one feature
of a high-dimensional input being unknown, like a pixel in an image. Therefore, we will remove
several features at once by again making use of our knowledge about images by strategically choosing
these feature sets: patches of connected pixels. Instead of going through all individual pixels, we
go through all patches of size k × k in the image (k × k × 3 for RGB images and k × k × k for 3D
images like MRI scans), implemented in a sliding window fashion. The patches are overlapping, so
that ultimately an individual pixel’s relevance is obtained by taking the average relevance obtained
from the different patches it was in.
Algorithm 1 and figure 2 illustrate how the method can be implemented, incorporating the proposed
improvements.

3.3 D EEP V ISUALIZATION OF H IDDEN L AYERS

When trying to understand neural networks and how they make decisions, it is not only interesting
to analyze the input-output relation of the classifier, but also to look at what is going on inside the
hidden layers of the network. We can adapt the method to see how the units of any layer of the
network influence a node from a deeper layer. Mathematically, we can formulate this as follows. Let
h be the vector representation of the values in a layer H in the network (after forward-propagating
the input up to this layer). Further, let z = z(h) be the value of a node that depends on h, i.e., a node
in a subsequent layer. Then the analog of equation (2) is given by the expectation:
X
g(z|h\i ) ≡ Ep(hi |h\i ) [z(h)] = p(hi |h\i )z(h\i , hi ) , (5)
hi

which expresses the distribution of z when unit hi in layer H is unobserved. The equation now works
for arbitrary layer/unit combinations, and evaluates to the same as equation (1) when the input-output
relation is analyzed. To evaluate the difference between g(z|h) and g(z|h\i ), we will in general use
the activation difference, ADi (z|h) = g(z|h) − g(z|h\i ) , for the case when we are not dealing with
probabilities (and equation (3) is not applicable).

4 E XPERIMENTS
In this section, we illustrate how the proposed visualization method can be applied, on the ImageNet
dataset of natural images when using DCNNs (section 4.1), and on a medical imaging dataset of MRI
scans when using a logistic regression classifier (section 4.2). For marginal sampling we always use
the empirical distribution, i.e., we replace a feature (patch) with samples taken directly from other
images, at the same location. For conditional sampling we use a multivariate normal distribution. For
both sampling methods we use 10 samples to estimate p(c|x\i ) (since no significant difference was
observed with more samples). Note that all images are best viewed digital and in color.
Our implementation is available at github.com/lmzintgraf/DeepVis-PredDiff.

4.1 I MAGE N ET: U NDERSTANDING HOW A DCNN MAKES DECISIONS

We use images from the ILSVRC challenge (Russakovsky et al., 2015) (a large dataset of natural im-
ages from 1000 categories) and three DCNNs: the AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), the GoogLeNet
(Szegedy et al., 2015) and the (16-layer) VGG network (Simonyan & Zisserman, 2014). We used the
publicly available pre-trained models that were implemented using the deep learning framework caffe
(Jia et al., 2014). Analyzing one image took us on average 20, 30 and 70 minutes for the respective
classifiers AlexNet, GoogLeNet and VGG (using the GPU implementation of caffe and mini-batches
with the standard settings of 10 samples and a window size of k = 10).
The results shown here are chosen from among a small set of images in order to show a range of
behavior of the algorithm. The shown images are quite representative of the performance of the
method in general. Examples on randomly selected images, including a comparison to the sensitivity
analysis of Simonyan et al. (2013), can be seen in appendix A.

4
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 3: Visualization of the effects of marginal versus conditional sampling using the GoogLeNet
classifier. The classifier makes correct predictions (ostrich and saxophone), and we show the evidence for (red)
and against (blue) this decision at the output layer. We can see that conditional sampling gives more targeted
explanations compared to marginal sampling. Also, marginal sampling assigns too much importance on pixels
that are easily predictable conditioned on their neighboring pixels.

Figure 4: Visualization of how different window sizes influence the visualization result. We used the
conditional sampling method and the AlexNet classifier with l = k + 4 and varying k. We can see that even
when removing single pixels (k = 1), this has a noticeable effect on the classifier and more important pixels get
a higher score. By increasing the window size we can get a more easily interpretable, smooth result until the
image gets blurry for very large window sizes.

We start this section by demonstrating our proposed improvements (sections 3.1 - 3.3).

Marginal vs Conditional Sampling

Figure 3 shows visualizations of the spatial support for the highest scoring class, using marginal
and conditional sampling (with k = 10 and l = 14). We can see that conditional sampling leads
to results that are more refined in the sense that they concentrate more around the object. We can
also see that marginal sampling leads to pixels being declared as important that are very easily
predictable conditioned on their neighboring pixels (like in the saxophone example). Throughout our
experiments, we have found that conditional sampling tends to give more specific and fine-grained
results than marginal sampling. For the rest of our experiments, we therefore show results using
conditional sampling only.

Multivariate Analysis
For ImageNet data, we have observed that setting k = 10 gives a good trade-off between sharp results
and a smooth appearance. Figure 4 shows how different window sizes influence the resolution of the
visualization. Surprisingly, removing only one pixel does have a measurable effect on the prediction,
and the largest effect comes from sensitive pixels. We expected that removing only one pixel does
not have any effect on the classification outcome, but apparently the classifier is sensitive even to
these small changes. However when using such a small window size, it is difficult to make sense of
the sign information in the visualization. If we want to get a good impression of which parts in the
image are evidence for/against a class, it is therefore better to use larger windows. If k is chosen too
large however, the results tend to get blurry. Note that these results are not just simple averages of
one another, but a multivariate approach is indeed necessary to observe the presented results.

Deep Visualization of Hidden Network Layers

Our third main contribution is the extension of the method to neural networks; to understand the role
of hidden layers in a DNN. Figure 5 shows how different feature maps in three different layers of the
GoogLeNet react to the input of a tabby cat (see figure 6, middle image). For each feature map in a
convolutional layer, we first compute the relevance of the input image for each hidden unit in that
map. To estimate what the feature map as a whole is doing, we show the average of the relevance
vectors over all units in that feature map. The first convolutional layer works with different types of
simple image filters (e.g., edge detectors), and what we see is which parts of the input image respond

5
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 5: Visualization of feature maps from thee different layers of the GoogLeNet (l.t.r.: ”conv1/7x7_s2”,
”inception_3a/output”, ”inception_5b/output”), using conditional sampling and patch sizes k = 10 and l = 14
(see alg. 1). For each feature map in the convolutional layer, we first evaluate the relevance for every single unit,
and then average the results over all the units in one feature map to get a sense of what the unit is doing as a
whole. Red pixels activate a unit, blue pixels decreased the activation.

Figure 6: Visualization of three different feature maps, taken from the ”inception_3a/output” layer of the
GoogLeNet (from the middle of the network). Shown is the average relevance of the input features over all
activations of the feature map. We used patch sizes k = 10 and l = 14 (see alg. 1). Red pixels activate a unit,
blue pixels decreased the activation.

positively or negatively to these filters. The layer we picked from somewhere in the middle of the
network is specialized to higher level features (like facial features of the cat). The activations of the
last convolutional layer are very sparse across feature channels, indicating that these units are highly
specialized.
To get a sense of what single feature maps in convolutional layers are doing, we can look at their
visualization for different input images and look for patterns in their behavior. Figure 6 shows this
for four different feature maps from a layer from the middle of the GoogLeNet network. We can
directly see which kind of features the model has learned at this stage in the network. For example,
one feature map is mostly activated by the eyes of animals (third row), and another is looking mostly
at the background (last row).

Penultimate vs Output Layer

If we visualize the influence of the input features on the penultimate (pre-softmax) layer, we show
only the evidence for/against this particular class, without taking other classes into consideration.
After the softmax operation however, the values of the nodes are all interdependent: a drop in the
probability for one class could be due to less evidence for it, or because a different class becomes
more likely. Figure 7 compares visualizations for the last two layers. By looking at the top three
scoring classes, we can see that the visualizations in the penultimate layer look very similar if the
classes are similar (like different dog breeds). When looking at the output layer however, they look
rather different. Consider the case of the elephants: the top three classes are different elephant
subspecies, and the visualizations of the penultimate layer look similar since every subspecies can be
identified by similar characteristics. But in the output layer, we can see how the classifier decides
for one of the three types of elephants and against the others: the ears in this case are the crucial
difference.

6
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 7: Visualization of the support for the top-three scoring classes in the penultimate- and output
layer. Next to the input image, the first row shows the results with respect to the penultimate layer; the second
row with respect to the output layer. For each image, we additionally report the values of the units. We used the
AlexNet with conditional sampling and patch sizes k = 10 and l = 14 (see alg. 1). Red pixels are evidence for
a class, and blue against it.

Figure 8: Comparison of the prediction visualization of different DCNN architectures. For two input
images, we show the results of the prediction difference analysis when using different neural networks - the
AlexNet, GoogLeNet and VGG network.

Network Comparison
When analyzing how neural networks make decisions, we can also compare how different network
architectures influence the visualization. Here, we tested our method on the AlexNet, the GoogLeNet
and the VGG network. Figure 8 shows the results for the three different networks, on two input
images. The AlexNet seems to more on contextual information (the sky in the balloon image),
which could be attributed to it having the least complex architecture compared to the other two
networks. It is also interesting to see that the VGG network deems the basket of the balloon as very
important compared to all other pixels. The second highest scoring class in this case was a parachute
- presumably, the network learned to not confuse a balloon with a parachute by detecting a square
basket (and not a human).

4.2 MRI DATA : E XPLAINING C LASSIFIER D ECISIONS IN M EDICAL I MAGING

To illustrate how our visualization method can also be useful in a medical domain, we show some
experimental results on an MRI dataset of HIV and healthy patients. In such settings, it is crucial that
the practitioner has some insight into the algorithm’s decision when classifying a patient, to weigh
this information and incorporate it in the overall diagnosis process.
The dataset used here is referred to as the COBRA dataset. It contains 3D MRIs from 100 HIV
patients and 70 healthy individuals, included in the Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Of these subjects, diffusion weighted MRI data were acquired. Preprocessing of the
data was performed with software developed in-house, using the HPCN-UvA Neuroscience Gateway
and using resources of the Dutch e-Science Grid Shahand et al. (2015). As a result, Fractional
Anisotropy (FA) maps were computed. FA is sensitive to microstructural damage and therefore
expected to be, on average, decreased in patients. Subjects were scanned on two 3.0 Tesla scanner
systems, 121 subjects on a Philips Intera system and 39 on a Philips Ingenia system. Patients and
controls were evenly distributed. FA images were spatially normalized to standard space Andersson
et al. (2007), resulting in volumes with 91 × 109 × 91 = 902, 629 voxels.

7
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

We trained an L2-regularized Logistic Regression classifier on a subset of the MRI slices (slices
29-40 along the first axis) and on a balanced version of the dataset (by taking the first 70 samples
of the HIV class) to achieve an accuracy of 69.3% in a 10-fold cross-validation test. Analyzing one
image took around half an hour (on a CPU, with k = 3 and l = 7, see algorithm 1). For conditional
sampling, we also tried adding location information in equation (2), i.e., we split up the 3D image
into a 20 × 20 × 20 grid and also condition on the index in that grid. We found that this slightly
improved the interpretability of the results, since the pixel values in the special case of MRI scans
does depend on spacial location as well.
Figure 9 (first row) shows one way via which the prediction difference results could be presented
to a physician, for an HIV sample. By overlapping the prediction difference and the MRI image,
the exact regions can be pointed out that are evidence for (red parts) or against (blue parts) the
classifier’s decision. The second row shows the results using the weights of the logistic regression
classifier, which is a commonly used method in neuroscientific literature. We can see that they
are considerably noisier (in the sense that, compared to our method, the voxels relevant for the
classification decisions are more scattered), and also, they are not specific to the given image. Figure
10 shows the visualization results for four healthy, and four HIV samples. We can clearly see that
the patterns for the two classes are distinct, and there is some pattern to the decision of the classifier,
but which is still specific to the input image. Figure 11 shows the same (HIV) sample as in figure 9
along different axes, and figure 12 shows how the visualization changes with different patch sizes.
We believe that both varying the slice and patch size can give different insights to a clinician, and in
clinical practice, a 3D animation where these parameters can be adjusted would be very useful for
analyzing the visualization result.
In general we can assume that the better the classifier, the closer the explanations for its decisions are
to the true class difference. For clinical practice it is therefore crucial to have very good classifiers.
This will increase computation time, but in many medical settings, longer waiting times for test
results are common and worth the wait if the patient is not in an acute life threatening condition (e.g.,
when predicting HIV or Alzheimer from MRI scans, or the field of cancer diagnosis and detection).
The presented results here are for demonstration purposes of the visualization method, and we claim
no medical validity. A thorough qualitative analysis incorporating expert knowledge was outside the
scope of this paper.

5 F UTURE WORK
In our experiments, we used a simple multivariate normal distribution for conditional sampling. We
can imagine that using more sophisticated generative models will lead to better results: pixels that
are easily predictable by their surrounding are downweighted even more. However this will also
significantly increase the computational resources needed to produce the explanations. Similarly,
we could try to modify equation (4) to get an even better approximation by using a conditional
distribution that takes more information about the whole image into account (like adding spatial
information for the MRI scans).
To make the method applicable for clinical analysis and practice, a better classification algorithm
is required. Also, software that visualizes the results as an interactive 3D model will improve the
usability of the system.

6 C ONCLUSION
We presented a new method for visualizing deep neural networks that improves on previous methods
by using a more powerful conditional, multivariate model. The visualization method shows which
pixels of a specific input image are evidence for or against a node in the network. The signed
information offers new insights - for research on the networks, as well as the acceptance and usability
in domains like healthcare. While our method requires significant computational resources, real-time
3D visualization is possible when visualizations are pre-computed. With further optimization and
powerful GPUs, pre-computation time can be reduced a lot further. In our experiments, we have
presented several ways in which the visualization method can be put into use for analyzing how
DCNNs make decisions.

8
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 9: Visualization of the support for the correct classification ”HIV”, using the Prediction Differ-
ence method and Logistic Regression Weights. For an HIV sample, we show the results with the prediction
difference (first row), and using the weights of the logistic regression classifier (second row), for slices 29 and 40
(along the first axis). Red are positive values, and blue negative. For each slice, the left image shows the original
image, overlaid with the relevance values. The right image shows the original image with reversed colors and
the relevance values. Relevance values are shown only for voxels with (absolute) relevance value above 15% of
the (absolute) maximum value.

Figure 10: Prediction difference visualization for different samples. The first four samples are of the class
”healthy”; the last four of the class ”HIV”. All images show slice 39 (along the first axis). All samples are
correctly classified, and the results show evidence for (red) and against (blue) this decision. Prediction differences
are shown only for voxels with (absolute) relevance value above 15% of the (absolute) maximum value.

Figure 11: Visualization results across different slices of the MRI image, using the same input image as
shown in 9. Prediction differences are shown only for voxels with (absolute) relevance value above 15% of the
(absolute) maximum value.

Figure 12: How the patch size influences the visualization. For the input image (HIV sample, slice 39 along
the first axis) we show the visualization with different patch sizes (k in alg. 1). Prediction differences are shown
only for voxels with (absolute) relevance value above 15% of the (absolute) maximum (for k = 2 it is 10%).

9
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by AWS in Education Grant award. We thank Facebook and Google for financial
support, and our reviewers for their time and valuable, constructive feedback.
This work was also in part supported by: Innoviris, the Brussels Institute for Research and Innovation, Brussels,
Belgium; the Nuts-OHRA Foundation (grant no. 1003-026), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; The Netherlands
Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) together with AIDS Fonds (grant no 300020007
and 2009063). Additional unrestricted scientific grants were received from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare,
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck&Co.
We thank Barbara Elsenga, Jane Berkel, Sandra Moll, Maja Totté, and Marjolein Martens for running the
AGEhIV study program and capturing our data with such care and passion. We thank Yolanda Ruijs-Tiggelman,
Lia Veenenberg-Benschop, Sima Zaheri, and Mariska Hillebregt at the HIV Monitoring Foundation for their
contributions to data management. We thank Aafien Henderiks and Hans-Erik Nobel for their advice on logistics
and organization at the Academic Medical Center. We thank all HIV-physicians and HIV-nurses at the Academic
Medical Center for their efforts to include the HIV-infected participants into the AGEhIV Cohort Study, and the
Municipal Health Service Amsterdam personnel for their efforts to include the HIV-uninfected participants into
the AGEhIV Cohort Study. We thank all study participants without whom this research would not be possible.
AGEhIV Cohort Study Group. Scientific oversight and coordination: P. Reiss (principal investigator),
F.W.N.M. Wit, M. van der Valk, J. Schouten, K.W. Kooij, R.A. van Zoest, E. Verheij, B.C. Elsenga (Aca-
demic Medical Center (AMC), Department of Global Health and Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and
Development (AIGHD)). M. Prins (co-principal investigator), M.F. Schim van der Loeff, M. Martens, S. Moll,
J. Berkel, M. Totté, G.R. Visser, L. May, S. Kovalev, A. Newsum, M. Dijkstra (Public Health Service of
Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases). Datamanagement: S. Zaheri, M.M.J. Hillebregt, Y.M.C. Ruijs,
D.P. Benschop, A. el Berkaoui (HIV Monitoring Foundation). Central laboratory support: N.A. Kootstra, A.M.
Harskamp-Holwerda, I. Maurer, T. Booiman, M.M. Mangas Ruiz, A.F. Girigorie, B. Boeser-Nunnink (AMC,
Laboratory for Viral Immune Pathogenesis and Department of Experimental Immunology). Project management
and administrative support: W. Zikkenheiner, F.R. Janssen (AIGHD). Participating HIV physicians and nurses:
S.E. Geerlings, M.H. Godfried, A. Goorhuis, J.W.R. Hovius, J.T.M. van der Meer, F.J.B. Nellen, T. van der Poll,
J.M. Prins, P. Reiss, M. van der Valk, W.J. Wiersinga, M. van Vugt, G. de Bree, F.W.N.M. Wit; J. van Eden,
A.M.H. van Hes, M. Mutschelknauss , H.E. Nobel, F.J.J. Pijnappel, M. Bijsterveld, A. Weijsenfeld, S. Smalhout
(AMC, Division of Infectious Diseases). Other collaborators: J. de Jong, P.G. Postema (AMC, Department of
Cardiology); P.H.L.T. Bisschop, M.J.M. Serlie (AMC, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism); P. Lips (Free
University Medical Center Amsterdam); E. Dekker (AMC, Department of Gastroenterology); N. van der Velde
(AMC, Division of Geriatric Medicine); J.M.R. Willemsen, L. Vogt (AMC, Division of Nephrology); J. Schouten,
P. Portegies, B.A. Schmand, G.J. Geurtsen (AMC, Department of Neurology); F.D. Verbraak, N. Demirkaya
(AMC, Department of Ophthalmology); I. Visser (AMC, Department of Psychiatry); A. Schadé (Free University
Medical Center Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry); P.T. Nieuwkerk, N. Langebeek (AMC, Department of
Medical Psychology); R.P. van Steenwijk, E. Dijkers (AMC, Department of Pulmonary medicine); C.B.L.M.
Majoie, M.W.A. Caan, T. Su (AMC, Department of Radiology); H.W. van Lunsen, M.A.F. Nievaard (AMC,
Department of Gynaecology); B.J.H. van den Born, E.S.G. Stroes, (AMC, Division of Vascular Medicine);
W.M.C. Mulder (HIV Vereniging Nederland).

R EFERENCES
Jesper LR Andersson, Mark Jenkinson, and Stephen Smith. Non-linear optimisation. fmrib technical report
tr07ja1. University of Oxford FMRIB Centre: Oxford, UK, 2007.

Sebastian Bach, Alexander Binder, Grégoire Montavon, Frederick Klauschen, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Woj-
ciech Samek. On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propaga-
tion. PloS one, 10(7):e0130140, 2015.

Christine Ecker, Andre Marquand, Janaina Mourão-Miranda, Patrick Johnston, Eileen M Daly, Michael J
Brammer, Stefanos Maltezos, Clodagh M Murphy, Dene Robertson, Steven C Williams, et al. Describing
the brain in autism in five dimensions—magnetic resonance imaging-assisted diagnosis of autism spectrum
disorder using a multiparameter classification approach. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(32):10612–10623,
2010.

Dumitru Erhan, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Visualizing higher-layer features of a
deep network. Dept. IRO, Université de Montréal, Tech. Rep, 4323, 2009.

Bilwaj Gaonkar and Christos Davatzikos. Analytic estimation of statistical significance maps for support vector
machine based multi-variate image analysis and classification. NeuroImage, 78:270–283, 2013.

10
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Stefan Haufe, Frank Meinecke, Kai Görgen, Sven Dähne, John-Dylan Haynes, Benjamin Blankertz, and Felix
Bießmann. On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging. Neuroimage,
87:96–110, 2014.
Yangqing Jia, Evan Shelhamer, Jeff Donahue, Sergey Karayev, Jonathan Long, Ross Girshick, Sergio Guadar-
rama, and Trevor Darrell. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1408.5093, 2014.
Stefan Klöppel, Cynthia M Stonnington, Carlton Chu, Bogdan Draganski, Rachael I Scahill, Jonathan D Rohrer,
Nick C Fox, Clifford R Jack, John Ashburner, and Richard SJ Frackowiak. Automatic classification of mr
scans in alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 131(3):681–689, 2008.

Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural
networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 1097–1105, 2012.

Janaina Mourao-Miranda, Arun LW Bokde, Christine Born, Harald Hampel, and Martin Stetter. Classifying
brain states and determining the discriminating activation patterns: Support vector machine on functional mri
data. NeuroImage, 28(4):980–995, 2005.

Marko Robnik-Šikonja and Igor Kononenko. Explaining classifications for individual instances. Knowledge and
Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 20(5):589–600, 2008.
Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej
Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C. Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale
Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 115(3):211–252, 2015. doi:
10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y.

Shayan Shahand, Ammar Benabdelkader, Mohammad Mahdi Jaghoori, Mostapha al Mourabit, Jordi Huguet,
Matthan WA Caan, Antoine HC Kampen, and Sílvia D Olabarriaga. A data-centric neuroscience gateway:
design, implementation, and experiences. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 27(2):
489–506, 2015.

Avanti Shrikumar, Peyton Greenside, Anna Shcherbina, and Anshul Kundaje. Not just a black box: Learning
important features through propagating activation differences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01713, 2016.

Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising
image classification models and saliency maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034, 2013.

Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan,
Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–9, 2015.

Ze Wang, Anna R Childress, Jiongjiong Wang, and John A Detre. Support vector machine learning-based fmri
data group analysis. NeuroImage, 36(4):1139–1151, 2007.
Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Anh Nguyen, Thomas Fuchs, and Hod Lipson. Understanding neural networks
through deep visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06579, 2015.

Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Computer
vision–ECCV 2014, pp. 818–833. Springer, 2014.

Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Learning deep features
for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, pp. 2921–2929, 2016.

11
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

A R ANDOM R ESULTS

Figure 13: Results on 34 randomly chosen ImageNet images. Middle columns: original image; left columns:
sensitivity maps (Simonyan et al., 2013) where the red pixels indicate high sensitivity, and white pixels mean no
sensitivity (note that we show the absolute values of the partial derivatives, since the sign cannot be interpreted
like in our method); right columns: results from our method. For both methods, we visualize the results with
respect to the correct class which is given above the image. In brackets we see how the classifier ranks this class,
i.e., a (1) means it was correctly classified, whereas a (4) means that it was misclassified, and the correct class
was ranked fourth. For our method, red areas show evidence for the correct class, and blue areas show evidence
against the class (e.g., the scuba diver looks more like a tea pot to the classifier).

12