I think the case for interpretability could have been made better, but in Figure 3 I think if you look at the middle "prototype" rows from the traditional vs Tv

I think the case for interpretability could have been made better, but in Figure 3 I think if you look at the middle "prototype" rows from the traditional vs Tversky layers, and scroll so you can't see the rows above, I think you could pick out mostly which Tversky prototype corresponds to each digit, but not which traditional/linear prototype corresponds to each digit. So I do think that's more interpretable in two ways: 1. You can look at specific representations in the model and "see" what they "mean" 2. This means you can give a high-level interpretation to a particular inference run: "X_i is a 7 because it's like this prototype that looks like a 7, and it has some features that only turn up in 7s" I do think complex models doing complex tasks will sometimes have extremely complex "explanations" which may not really communicate anything to a human, and so do not function as an explanation.