Interpretability Without Tradeoffs: Disentangling Polysemanticity At Equal Predictive Performance

Gradient-based saliency methods are widely used to interpret deep neural networks, yet they often produce noisy and unstable explanations that poorly align with semantically meaningful input features. We argue that a fundamental cause of this behavior lies in the geometry of learned representations: correlated feature dimensions diffuse attribution gradients across redundant directions, resulting in blurred and unreliable saliency maps. To address this issue, we identify feature correlation as a structural limitation of gradient-based interpretability and propose SaliencyDecor, a training framework that enforces feature decorrelation to improve attribution fidelity without modifying saliency methods or model architectures by reshaping the feature space toward orthogonality, our approach promotes more concentrated gradient flow and improves the fidelity of saliency-based explanations. SaliencyDecor jointly optimizes classification, prediction consistency under feature masking, and a decorrelation regularizer, requiring no architectural changes or inference-time overhead. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks and architectures demonstrate that our method produces substantially sharper and more object-focused saliency maps while simultaneously improving predictive performance, achieving accuracy gains across the datasets. These results establish our method as a principled mechanism for enhancing both interpretability and accuracy, challenging the conventional trade-off between explanation quality and model performance.

How interpretable are the features of leading vision models? The question is increasingly pressing as these models move from research benchmarks into high-stakes deployments, yet existing methods cannot answer it reliably. We close this gap with a framework for measuring and comparing the human interpretability of vision models, built around two complementary psychophysics protocols: (1) localizability -- can an observer predict where a feature fires on a novel image? -- and (2) nameability -- can an observer accurately describe what the feature represents? Features are recovered via sparse autoencoders, and a chance-anchored scoring function places every model on a common scale. Applying the framework to six vision transformers -- two supervised ViTs and four foundation models (DINOv2, DINOv3, CLIP, SigLIP) -- we collected more than $15{,}000$ behavioral responses, analyzing the $13{,}400$ responses from the $377$ participants who passed our pre-specified quality checks. Foundation models are consistently less interpretable than their supervised counterparts, and the gap is not a capability tradeoff: interpretability does not correlate with downstream task performance on any benchmark we examine. What does correlate is the locality of a feature's activations and coarse-grained semantic alignment with humans -- models with focal activations and representations that reflect the world's broad categorical structure produce more interpretable features, whereas fine-grained perceptual alignment does not. The two protocols yield strongly correlated rankings and share the same predictors, establishing interpretability as an independent, measurable dimension of representation quality -- and, surprisingly, one on which every foundation model we tested falls below the supervised baselines that came before. Capability alone cannot close that gap; locality and coarse-grained alignment can.

Interpretable Mesomorphic Neural Networks (IMNs) offer a promising framework that combines the predictive power of deep neural networks with the interpretability of linear models. However, the original formulation lacks safeguards to ensure that the learned interpretations are in fact reliable. In particular, the network is free to concentrate all explanatory variance into a single weight of the linear output layer, achieving strong predictive performance while producing interpretations that are largely meaningless. Paradoxically, the L1 penalty proposed to encourage sparse solutions exacerbates this problem by further incentivizing such degenerate configurations. To address this vulnerability, we introduce Local Fidelity Regularization (LFR), a novel penalty term that prevents degenerate weight collapse by aligning the linear output weights with local data variations. This structural constraint guarantees faithful explanations and substantially improves the reliability of model interpretations. Furthermore, empirical evaluations across the OpenML benchmark suite demonstrate that LFR does not compromise accuracy for explainability; rather, it achieved improved AUROC over the unregularized IMN. By yielding results highly competitive with state-of-the-art black-box models, LFR provides the dual benefit of reliable interpretability and superior predictive performance. Source code and usage instructions are available at https://github.com/hugohammer/LFR-IMN.git.