Localization Gains from Explanation Regularization Should Not Be Interpreted as Faithfulness Gains.

Abstract

Training-time explanation regularization is often evaluated by whether saliency maps become more concentrated within annotated regions. We argue that this criterion alone is insufficient: transformation consistency, lesion localization, and faithfulness to the classifier are distinct properties and should be evaluated separately, particularly in medical imaging. We examine this distinction through a case study of Contrastive Grad-CAM Consistency (CGC) in three-class brain tumor MRI classification. Using a single-channel ResNet-50 with five-fold patient-grouped cross-validation, we compare a cross-entropy baseline with CGC. CGC changes overall Pointing Game (PG) from $27.24\%$ to $36.02\%$ and Relevance Mass Accuracy (RMA) from $11.17\%$ to $18.01\%$, while classification accuracy changes from $93.63\%$ to $94.87\%$. Perturbation-based faithfulness metrics show inconsistent changes: Insertion Area Under the Curve (IAUC) changes from $0.73$ to $0.78$, whereas Deletion Area Under the Curve (DAUC) favors the baseline ($0.36$ versus $0.41$; lower is better), and overall Iterative Removal Of Features (IROF) is $0.57$ for both models. These results support our position that improved spatial agreement with pathology should not be interpreted as a general improvement in explanation faithfulness. We therefore recommend property-specific evaluation in which the property targeted by the explanation objective, spatial agreement with reference regions, and model reliance are measured and reported separately.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.