mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Consistent Evidence, Robust Recognition: Faithful Attribution Regularization under Geometric Transformations

arXiv 2607.23835 ↗First posted 26 Jul 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Attribution methods are widely used to characterize the evidence underlying model predictions, yet their potential to improve model behavior remains underexplored. Attribution inconsistency under label-preserving geometric transformations may indicate transformation-sensitive evidence reliance, motivating attribution regularization. However, such supervision is valid only when attribution faithfully reflects the evidence driving predictions. Existing self-supervised methods typically align gradient-based maps such as Grad-CAM, whose limited faithfulness means that attribution consistency need not imply consistency of the underlying decision process, leaving transformation robustness unresolved. We propose an annotation-free attribution regularization framework based on submodular search over image regions. By measuring how candidate subsets affect model outputs, the search extracts compact, class-discriminative evidence as search-derived supervision. We further introduce a submodular ranking loss with path-consistency and termination-alignment terms that respectively align spatially corresponding candidate rankings along paired search trajectories and encourage the transformed trajectory to satisfy the stopping criterion at the target terminal step. The loss provides a differentiable surrogate for regularizing both final attributions and the otherwise discrete evidence-selection process. Experiments on ImageNet-100 show that our method substantially improves attribution stability, Insertion, and Deletion on ViT-B/16 with only a 0.28-point accuracy drop, with similar gains on ViT-L/16. On ImageNet-1K, it improves transformed-input accuracy on ResNet-50 and ConvNeXt-B while limiting the clean-accuracy drop to 0.30 points, demonstrating more consistent evidence reliance with minimal performance loss. Code will be released soon.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.

Builds on

40 of 58 references.

References · 40

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  5. 2023Grounding DINO: Marrying DINO with Grounded Pre-Training for Open-Set Object Detectioncited by 3,274
  6. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
  7. 2020The Many Faces of Robustness: A Critical Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 1,842
  8. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
  9. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  10. 2019Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 1,401
  11. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  12. 2019Learning Robust Global Representations by Penalizing Local Predictive Powercited by 1,010
28 more
  1. 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
  2. 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 488
  3. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  4. 2023Florence-2: Advancing a Unified Representation for a Variety of Vision Taskscited by 403
  5. 2020Are we done with ImageNet?cited by 329
  6. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 310
  7. 2017Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanationscited by 293
  8. 2020Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanationscited by 141
  9. 2019Taking a HINT: Leveraging Explanations to Make Vision and Language Models More Groundedcited by 127
  10. 2021HIVE: Evaluating the Human Interpretability of Visual Explanationscited by 105
  11. 2023Leaving Reality to Imagination: Robust Classification via Generated Datasetscited by 91
  12. 2022Going Beyond XAI: A Systematic Survey for Explanation-Guided Learningcited by 35
  13. 2020One Explanation is Not Enough: Structured Attention Graphs for Image Classificationcited by 32
  14. 2022Improving Visual Grounding by Encouraging Consistent Gradient-based Explanationscited by 24
  15. 2024Interpreting Object-level Foundation Models via Visual Precision Searchcited by 20
  16. 2021Consistent Explanations by Contrastive Learningcited by 18
  17. 2025Where MLLMs Attend and What They Rely On: Explaining Autoregressive Token Generationcited by 15
  18. 2022On the Relationship Between Explanation and Prediction: A Causal Viewcited by 14
  19. 2023Are Data-driven Explanations Robust against Out-of-distribution Data?cited by 14
  20. 2023Evaluating the Robustness of Interpretability Methods through Explanation Invariance and Equivariancecited by 13
  21. 2024IG2: Integrated Gradient on Iterative Gradient Path for Feature Attributioncited by 12
  22. 2025How to Probe: Simple Yet Effective Techniques for Improving Post-hoc Explanationscited by 8
  23. 2023G-CAME: Gaussian-Class Activation Mapping Explainer for Object Detectorscited by 7
  24. 2025Generalized Semantic Contrastive Learning via Embedding Side Information for Few-Shot Object Detectioncited by 6
  25. 2024Identifying Important Group of Pixels using Interactionscited by 5
  26. 2024Path Choice Matters for Clear Attribution in Path Methodscited by 4
  27. 2026Where Not to Learn: Prior-Aligned Training with Subset-based Attribution Constraintscited by 2
  28. 2026Explanation-Guided Adversarial Training for Robust and Interpretable Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.