Concept-Based Techniques for “Musicologist-friendly” Explanations in a Deep Music Classifier

Musical concepts describe the characteristics of a certain group of notes and are identified by musicologists with a specific name or with a small sentence (e.g., “staccato”, “rubato”, “melody with jumps”, etc.). To define a musical concept in a way that can be used within our system, we construct concept datasets, i.e., sets of pieces that have one specific musical concept in common. In this paper, we build three different concept datasets, each consisting of 30 musical excerpts of ~25 seconds. Ideally, the bigger and more diverse the concept datasets is, the lower is the probability that it will also represent other unwanted concepts.

The first dataset describes the “alberti bass”: an accompaniment pattern first used during the classical period, where notes of chords are horizontally distributed in the left hand part [32]. For this dataset a semi-professional pianist composed ~25 second excerpts that contain this pattern, while trying to vary as much as possible other musical elements (e.g., key, tempo, content of the right hand).

The second concept is “difficult-to-play music”. A dataset of difficult musical excerpts was collected using the ranking produced by the musical score publisher G. Henle.⁴⁴4https://www.henle.de/us/about-us/levels-of-difficulty-piano/ Excerpts were sampled from difficult pieces available in the MAESTRO dataset among different composers to avoid introducing biases toward some of them.

The third concept is “contrapuntal texture”, which denotes piano pieces composed of multiple monophonic voices that behave as separate instruments. This style is mostly present in pieces by some Baroque composers (e.g., Bach, Telemann, Händel, Buxtehude). For this dataset, we sampled Bach fugue performances, ensuring that they were not used during training the targeted composer classifier.

In addition to these three concept datasets, in this paper we use a collection of 10 different random datasets, which are built by randomly sampling 20 second excerpts from the MAESTRO dataset.

A Concept Activation Vector (CAV) [13] $v_l^k$ represents a concept $k$ in the output space of a neural network layer $l$. To compute it, we need the corresponding concept dataset (containing e.g., pieces with alberti bass) and a random dataset [13]. For a specific network layer $l$, we compute the layer activations (i.e., the output of the layer) for every piano roll $x$ in the concept dataset, as well as the random dataset (see Figure 1). These activations can be seen as points in a $(H\times W\times C)$-dimensional space, where $H,W,C$ are the horizontal, vertical, and channel size in the layer activations tensor. We train a binary linear classifier (e.g., Support Vector Machine (SVM) or logistic regression) that separates the layer activations of the concept pieces from those of the random pieces. The vector of coefficients of this binary classifier, i.e., the vector orthogonal to the classification boundary, is the CAV $v_l^k$ [13].

To measure whether a concept $k$ is relevant for a piece being classified as a certain composer $o$, we use the conceptual sensitivity $S_{k,o,l}$ of the system [13], i.e., the directional derivative of the prediction in the direction of the CAV,

Here, $g_{l,o}$ transforms the activation vector $f_l\left(x\right)$ to the logit for the output class $o$, that is, it represents the remaining computations after a layer $l$ up to the output of the system. Intuitively, $S$ is a scalar that measures how much the output logits change if we perturb the layer activations in the direction of the CAV. Positive values mean that a concept $k$ encourages the classification of $x$ as class $o$.

The conceptual sensitivity is a local explanation, i.e., it explains how a system behaves for a specific input. We produce a global explanation, the TCAV score, that no longer depends on a specific input, by taking multiple pieces that belong to one class and computing the ratio of pieces for which $S$ is positive [13].

To investigate TCAV, we first compute a CAV for every one of our proposed concepts ‘‘alberti bass’’, ‘‘difficult-to-play music’’, and ‘‘contrapuntal texture’’.⁵⁵5Using https://captum.ai/api/concept.html As a linear classifier that separates the activations of the concept samples from those of the random samples, we use a linear SVM. This approach requires inputs of the same dimension, so we crop or pad all concepts to 20 seconds length (also used during training). Cropping is done by selecting the middle 20 seconds of a MIDI performance; padding adds silence until the appropriate length is reached.

In the next step, we examine the conceptual sensitivities of all the validation data and compute the TCAV score for all pieces by the same composer, i.e., the relative amount of positive conceptual sensitivities over the pieces. We again need to ensure inputs have the same length as our concepts, so we split every piece into non-overlapping 20 second segments and use all of these for subsequent computations. Although we can compute the TCAV score for any layer of the composer classifier, for brevity we show results of the penultimate layer subsequently, expecting this layer to encode the highest level features, similar to the image domain [36]. To compute TCAV scores, we perform ten runs with ten random datasets [13], and run a two-sided t-test and a Bonferroni correction for all concepts and composers to validate our experiments. We use a significance threshold of $\alpha =0.05/13$ (correcting for 13 hypothesis tests).

In our experiments, the SVM differentiating between concepts and random data has an accuracy greater than 0.9 for all concepts (in most cases, even 1). This means that the activations of the penultimate layer for the concept and the random samples are linearly separable, i.e., the CAV we produce represents the concept it is targeting. The TCAV score results are summarised in Table 1. All cells with “+” or “-” show results that pass our statistical significance test, and the remaining (empty) cells show results that fail. The symbol “+” means that a particular concept appears important for the classification of the corresponding composer (i.e., average TCAV score $>0.5$); “-” that a concept discourages the classification of an input as a certain composer (i.e., average TCAV score $<0.5$).

Table 1 shows both results that we would expect (e.g., alberti bass being relevant for Mozart, contrapuntal texture for Bach), and a few results which seem counter-intuitive (e.g., the model relying on alberti bass for Bach or Brahms – although one can find examples of such structures also in their works). It is possible that our model mixes the proposed concepts with other confounding ones, e.g., all pieces in the Alberti Bass dataset have also a quite simple harmonic structure. In general, there is no proof that the model understands our proposed concepts similarly to how a human listener would, yet we can make some interesting observations. Remarkably, even an extremely abstract concept such as “difficult-to-play music” might be grasped by our model: Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff are clear candidates for this attribute. The same applies to the “contrapuntal texture". Cases with negative impact (“-”) should probably be interpreted with care: the fact that the classifier did not consider these concepts relevant for the classification does not necessarily mean that they are not present in the pieces. This could apply in particular to the subtle concept of contrapuntal texture. Also interesting is the case of Scarlatti, who is very much an outsider in classical music, style-wise (“a freakish if not downright incorrect composer” [16]) and could not be associated with any of our concepts.

Consider a set of layer activations $X=\left\{f_l\right(x_1),\cdots ,f_l(x_N\left)\right\}$ generated from multiple pieces $x_1,\dots ,x_N$. Layer activations that are close together (in terms of Euclidean distance) correspond to perceptually similar inputs [34] and therefore might describe similar concepts within the inputs. We could cluster similar activations and consider the pieces that generate these activations as examples of the same concept [7].

This works best if only one concept is present in a piece excerpt. However, we expect an excerpt to contain a number of different musical concepts, e.g., an alberti bass and a legato melody, both following a certain chord progression. Since these concepts can be shared across the same notes, we need a way to disentangle their effects on the layer activations. Due to the restriction on the type of activations (only non-negative) that we introduced in this section, we can use the NTD for this objective (see Section 5.3).

Given layer activations $f_l\left(x\right)$, let us consider their channel-mode tubes [17], i.e., the vectors obtained by fixing an index $h$ and $w$ for the horizontal and vertical dimension (see left-hand side of Figure 2). In the case of CNNs, we can consider each of these vectors as a different representation of the same piece with a different receptive field [21]. As proposed in [35], we can analyse channel-mode tubes $\in R^C$ instead of full layer activations $\in R^{H\times W\times C}$. This increases the amount of data and reduces the dimension of each data point by a factor of $H\times W$, therefore, we expect that the tensor decomposition that we will run on these data will achieve better results. Since every channel-mode tube represents a piece, we can compute CAVs in this restricted channel space $R^C$, and refer to them as Channel-CAVs (or C-CAVs). We can again compute the conceptual sensitivities for such C-CAVs, as explained in Section 4.2.

We compute C-CAVs by starting from a dataset of pieces (segmented in 20-second excerpts) of the composers we want to explain (any number of composers can be considered). We input each excerpt into the trained system and produce activations for a certain layer $l$ (see Figure 1). The set of all activations can be seen as a tensor $X\in R^{N\times H\times W\times C}$, where $N$ is the number of piece excerpts and $H,W$ and $C$ are the frequency, time, and channel size of the layer activation tensor. We then apply a NTD to $X$ to obtain a set of C-CAVs.

Moving to a channel-based formulation also permits us to highlight in which part of a piece a certain concept is present: since layer activations have a spatial correlation with input data [5] we can project the position $h,w$ of each C-CAV onto the input piano roll. This creates a concept presence heatmap showing the presence of a C-CAV [35] on a piano roll, which can be visualised to improve the user’s understanding of the concept. Averaging the values in this heatmap gives a number that expresses how much a concept is activated in a certain excerpt and allows a ranking of the pieces according to their average concept presence.

The NTD is a technique to decompose a tensor (e.g., $X$) into a so-called non-negative core tensor $T$, and multiple factor matrices $A\in R^{N\times N^{\prime }}$, $B\in R^{H\times H^{\prime }}$, $D\in R^{W\times W^{\prime }}$ and $E\in R^{C\times C^{\prime }}$ (one for every dimension) [17], such that

Here, the core tensor $T$ is in $R^{N^{\prime }\times H^{\prime }\times W^{\prime }\times C^{\prime }}$, and one of its scalar elements is denoted by $t_{nhwc}$. The symbol “$\circ$” denotes the vector outer product of the column vectors of the (four) factor matrices $a_n,b_h,d_w,e_c$. The number of columns of the factor matrices (i.e., the NTD ranks), $N^{\prime },H^{\prime },W^{\prime }$ and $C^{\prime }$ are hyper-parameters that can be chosen by the user; if we set them to $N^{\prime }=N$, $H^{\prime }=H$, etc., an exact reproduction of the original tensor $X$ is possible[17]. However, we mostly want to set them at lower values (i.e., $N^{\prime }<<N$, $H^{\prime }<<H$, etc.) to decrease the size of the matrices.

Equation 2 tells us that every channel-mode tube in $X$ can be reconstructed as a weighted sum of the columns of matrix $E$. As previously mentioned, each channel-mode tube represents a piece (in activation space), and each piece contains a sum of multiple concepts as C-CAVs. Then the C-CAVs we are looking for are disentangled as columns in $E$ (see Figure 2), and their number is specified by rank C’.

The NTD also allows us to reconstruct an approximation of the original tensor (i.e., the original layer activations), and compute the output of the composer classifier by feeding it back into the network. We can then compute the ratio of the predictions that remain unchanged after the NTD step (i.e., the fidelity) [35] to evaluate its impact on the composer classifier. For more details on NTD, we refer to [17]; in this paper, we use the implementation provided in [19], with the Hierarchical non-negative Alternating Least Squares algorithm to update the factor matrices and the Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm to update the core.

We compute the unsupervised explanations for the penultimate layer of our composer classification system and test multiple NTD ranks. As in [35], we present each concept to the user through the five piece excerpts with the highest average concept presence. The presentation of piece excerpts is more challenging for musical data than for images. Although symbolic performances can be visualised with piano rolls, some musical elements (e.g., harmonic elements) may be hard to understand in this format. We opt for a mixed audio-image visualisation where each excerpt is represented both with a piano roll (with a colour scale for velocity information) and with a listenable MIDI file. We create interactive piano roll visualisations (using Plotly [12]) in which the user can zoom in and out to explore different resolution levels. The concept presence heatmap is displayed as a semi-transparent mask over the piano roll. A heatmap with a fixed threshold, as proposed in [35], is hard to interpret for our data, so the user is presented with a slider that adapts the heatmap threshold (see Figure 3). We also provide “contrastive examples” for each concept, i.e., the 5 excerpts where the average concept presence is minimal. Although our explainer could find relevant concepts starting from a dataset that includes any number of composers, we focus on the results with only two composers. According to psychological studies [26], explanations are easier to understand when they involve only a small amount of information and when they target contrast cases [23], i.e., understanding why a composer is selected instead of another is easier than understanding why a composer is selected in general. For this reason, we also focus on C-CAVs with opposing conceptual sensitivities, i.e., negative for one class and positive for the other. We experimented with three different non-negative factorisation approaches: NTD applied to the 4d matrix (as explained in Section 5.3), NTD on a 3d matrix with concatenated horizontal and vertical dimensions, and NMF on a 2d matrix (as proposed by [35]) with concatenated horizontal, vertical, and piece dimension.

We found that the target classifier, when only two composers are considered, can be approximated with maximum fidelity by using only 3 to 5 C-CAVs, depending on the composers considered. For a fixed number of C-CAVs, we found no clear advantage for one of the three factorisation techniques with respect to the fidelity score. NTD allows for a much higher compression of $X$, up to 15 times smaller, preserving the same fidelity; but it is also much slower to compute. From a manual analysis, we see that our unsupervised explainer finds, for each opposing concept, examples of typical composing styles that are useful for discriminating between two composers.

Figure 3 shows an example of what our model considers a typical Chopin-style pattern that is not present in Bach’s music. In musical terms, it might be named “fast upward or downward movements (in the upper register) in parallel or broken thirds/sixths/octaves". Since our approach is based on non-negative factorisation techniques, some of their typical problems are also present in our results. For example, our system could produce one C-CAV that comprises what musical experts would typically interpret as two different concepts, or vice versa, produce two C-CAVs, both referring to the same concept. The former might have happened with the four small, seemingly unrelated blobs in the lower registers in the last two piano rolls of Figure 3. Furthermore, it is difficult to assign musically meaningful concept names to some C-CAVs, especially those with low average concept presence.