mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Same Predictions, Different Reasons: The Effect of Quantization on Model Explanations

arXiv 2607.22872 ↗First posted 24 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Post-training quantization (PTQ) has become a practical solution for deploying deep learning models on resource-constrained edge devices by compressing high-precision floating-point weights into low-precision representations without requiring retraining. Past research has demonstrated that quantization largely preserves classification accuracy; however, whether it also preserves the model's internal reasoning remains an open question. This study presents a systematic evaluation on how static PTQ affects the interpretability / explainability of five widely used CNN architectures: VGG19, ResNet18, EfficientNet-B0, DenseNet161, and MobileNetV2 at INT8 and INT4 precision. We employ a dual interpretability framework that combines Grad-CAM for spatial attention analysis with LIME for input-level feature attribution, and systematically compare full-precision and quantized models on two binary classification datasets. Interpretability is evaluated using three complementary metrics: the Pearson correlation coefficient, structural similarity index, and top-20% IoU to capture distributional and structural variations in model explanations, supplemented by deletion/insertion faithfulness analysis. The results show that classification accuracy is not a reliable indicator of interpretability stability under reduced precision. DenseNet161 maintains strong feature consistency across both precision levels, whereas EfficientNet-B0, despite achieving competitive spatial attention and classification accuracy at INT8 precision, exhibits a substantial degradation in input-level feature attribution. These findings have direct implications for the trustworthy deployment of quantized models in applications with high interpretability requirements, demonstrating that architecture selection is as important as the quantization strategy.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

Builds on

16 of 35 references.

References · 16

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  3. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  4. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,415
  5. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,773
  6. 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,430
  7. 2017Quantization and Training of Neural Networks for Efficient Integer-Arithmetic-Only Inferencecited by 1,548
  8. 2019Generalized Intersection over Union: A Metric and A Loss for Bounding Box Regressioncited by 1,361
  9. 2018Quantizing deep convolutional networks for efficient inference: A whitepapercited by 507
  10. 2021A White Paper on Neural Network Quantizationcited by 453
  11. 2022Post-training Quantization for Neural Networks with Provable Guaranteescited by 32
  12. 2024QGen: On the Ability to Generalize in Quantization Aware Trainingcited by 7
4 more
  1. 2023Q-HyViT: Post-Training Quantization of Hybrid Vision Transformers with Bridge Block Reconstruction for IoT Systemscited by 6
  2. 2023EPTQ: Enhanced Post-Training Quantization via Hessian-guided Network-wise Optimizationcited by 5
  3. 2024Quantization Effects on Neural Networks Perception: How would quantization change the perceptual field of vision models?cited by 2
  4. 2025EfficientQuant: An Efficient Post-Training Quantization for CNN-Transformer Hybrid Models on Edge Devicescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.