COSE: A Consistency-Sensitivity Metric for Saliency on Image Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a set of metrics that utilize vision priors to effectively assess the performance of saliency methods on image classification tasks. To understand behavior in deep learning models, many methods provide visual saliency maps emphasizing image regions that most contribute to a model prediction. However, there is limited work on analyzing the reliability of saliency methods in explaining model decisions. We propose the metric COnsistency-SEnsitivity (COSE) that quantifies the equivariant and invariant properties of visual model explanations using simple data augmentations. Through our metrics, we show that although saliency methods are thought to be architecture-independent, most methods could better explain transformer-based models over convolutional-based models. In addition, GradCAM was found to outperform other methods in terms of COSE but was shown to have limitations such as lack of variability for fine-grained datasets. The duality between consistency and sensitivity allow the analysis of saliency methods from different angles. Ultimately, we find that it is important to balance these two metrics for a saliency map to faithfully show model behavior.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Sep 2023.
Builds on
29 of 35 references.
References · 29
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,139
- 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,968
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,436
- 2021An Empirical Study of Training Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 1,616
- 2017EuroSAT: A Novel Dataset and Deep Learning Benchmark for Land Use and Land Cover Classificationcited by 1,496
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
17 more
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,109
- 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 939
- 2021iBOT: Image BERT Pre-Training with Online Tokenizercited by 903
- 2017Understanding the Effective Receptive Field in Deep Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 553
- 2021TransReID: Transformer-based Object Re-Identificationcited by 435
- 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 310
- 2021TrivialAugment: Tuning-free Yet State-of-the-Art Data Augmentationcited by 227
- 2020Debugging Tests for Model Explanationscited by 147
- 2019Sanity Checks for Saliency Metricscited by 119
- 2019XRAI: Better Attributions Through Regionscited by 116
- 2021Guided Integrated Gradients: An Adaptive Path Method for Removing Noisecited by 102
- 2021Do Feature Attribution Methods Correctly Attribute Features?cited by 98
- 2023Designing BERT for Convolutional Networks: Sparse and Hierarchical Masked Modelingcited by 94
- 2019Benchmarking Attribution Methods with Relative Feature Importancecited by 89
- 2020Attribution in Scale and Spacecited by 61
- 2021How Well do Feature Visualizations Support Causal Understanding of CNN Activations?cited by 28
- 2020How Good is your Explanation? Algorithmic Stability Measures to Assess the Quality of Explanations for Deep Neural Networkscited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.