ECG-InterpBench: Benchmarking the Interpretability of ECG Foundation Models with Matched-Scale Sparse Autoencoders
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing benchmarks for electrocardiogram foundation models primarily evaluate downstream predictive performance, providing limited insight into whether their internal representations can be faithfully decomposed, clinically interpreted, or reproduced across independent analyses. We introduce ECG-InterpBench, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the interpretability of ECG foundation-model representations. ECG-InterpBench uses sparse autoencoders as standardized measurement instruments and matches their capacity across models to enable controlled comparisons. We evaluate six frozen ECG foundation models across five standardized encoder depths, five matched dictionary widths, and three random seeds, producing a 450-cell interpretability atlas comprising 75 exactly matched six-model comparison blocks. The benchmark evaluates complementary dimensions of representation interpretability, including sparse reconstruction fidelity, single-feature accessibility and coverage of 49 clinically meaningful ECG measurements, and cross-seed feature reproducibility. The evaluation further quantifies patient-sampling uncertainty, depth- and seed-dependent variation, and sensitivity to the sparsity parameterization. The benchmark reveals that ECG foundation models exhibit distinct interpretability profiles. A matched replication on MIMIC-IV-ECG confirms that reconstruction fidelity and clinical accessibility identify different leading models. The benchmark is accompanied by executable evaluation code, standardized manifests, cell-level metrics, and reproducibility audits. ECG-InterpBench complements performance-centered ECG benchmarks by providing a capacity-controlled and reproducible framework for comparing ECG foundation models across distinct dimensions of representation interpretability.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.
Builds on
19 of 36 references.
References · 19
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
- 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 303
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 254
- 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 175
- 2020CLOCS: Contrastive Learning of Cardiac Signals Across Space, Time, and Patientscited by 170
- 2019Automatic diagnosis of the 12-lead ECG using a deep neural networkcited by 164
- 2020Deep Learning for ECG Analysis: Benchmarks and Insights from PTB-XLcited by 158
- 2019What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Usecited by 134
- 2024ECG-FM: An Open Electrocardiogram Foundation Modelcited by 89
7 more
- 2024Guiding Masked Representation Learning to Capture Spatio-Temporal Relationship of Electrocardiogramcited by 84
- 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 83
- 2021Self-supervised representation learning from 12-lead ECG datacited by 80
- 2024InterPLM: Discovering Interpretable Features in Protein Language Models via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 64
- 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
- 2024Learning General Representation of 12-Lead Electrocardiogram with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecturecited by 17
- 2026Mechanistic Interpretability of EEG Foundation Models via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.