Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Gradient Attention Map Based Verification of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks with Application to X-ray Image Datasets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a three-part verification framework that uses Grad-CAM attention, early-layer features, and a garbage class to catch deep learning models applied to the wrong X-ray dataset.

desk verdict Plausible verification framework for medical-image models, but the evaluation labels 'suitability' as same-dataset provenance, so the headline claim of generalizable verification is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21227 v2 pith:LBTHISH2 submitted 2025-04-29 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Omid Halimi Milani , Amanda Nikho , Lauren Mills , Marouane Tliba , Ahmet Enis Cetin , Mohammed H. Elnagar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords GradientAttentionMapGrad-CAMmodelverificationout-of-distributiondetectionmedicalimagingX-rayclassificationexplainableAIgarbageclass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a deep learning model's suitability for a medical X-ray dataset can be verified without knowing each image's ground-truth label, by checking whether the model's attention and early-layer feature patterns match those of a trusted reference model. Three mechanisms work together: seven similarity metrics over Grad-CAM heatmaps are fed to a Random Forest that labels model-dataset pairs as acceptable or misaligned; early convolutional feature maps are compared with the same metrics; and an extra garbage class is added to the classifier so it can reject out-of-distribution inputs instead of force-predicting. The paper reports 87.54% accuracy and 93.52% ROC AUC for the attention-based Random Forest, 99.36% accuracy for the Layer 1 feature-map check, and perfect 1.00 recall for the garbage class on the tested out-of-distribution datasets. If correct, this means a clinically deployed model can be audited by its visual focus before use, catching mismatched models that accuracy metrics alone would miss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gradient Attention Map (GAM), defined as the median-thresholded binarization of a Grad-CAM heatmap $H_M(I)$, which converts 'where the model looks' into a binary region that can be compared across models. Seven similarity metrics—IoU, Dice, SSIM, Cosine, Pearson, KL Divergence, and Wasserstein Distance—quantify spatial, perceptual, and distributional agreement between a candidate GAM and the reference GAM, and these metrics are the features for a Random Forest classifier. A second mechanism extracts early convolutional feature maps and treats the summed absolute activations as a 2D distribution, comparing Layer 1 and Layer 2 responses with the same metric suite. A third mechanism extends the output space with a garbage class trained on structurally similar but unrelated X-rays, so out-of-distribution inputs can be assigned a rejection label. The GAM-based Random Forest is the main verification decision maker; the feature maps provide a more sensitive check for gross dataset mismatch, and the garbage class handles per-input rejection.

What would settle it

Take a model trained on a third X-ray anatomy not used in the paper and compare its Grad-CAM to the SOS reference model: if the Random Forest labels it acceptable while a dental expert judges its attention to be clinically irrelevant, then the attention-alignment labels are not capturing clinical validity. A complementary test is to replace the reference GAM with expert-segmented anatomical regions of interest; if the seven similarity metrics then no longer separate acceptable from misaligned models, the choice of reference model, rather than clinical alignment, is responsible for the reported accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that model-dataset mismatch leaves a signature in the model's internal representations, and that signature can be read by comparing a candidate model against a reference model known to be clinically appropriate. For each image, the framework computes a Gradient Attention Map (GAM) by thresholding the Grad-CAM heatmap, then measures against the reference map using IoU, Dice, SSIM, Cosine Similarity, Pearson Correlation, KL Divergence, and Wasserstein Distance. A Random Forest trained on these seven features separates acceptable from misaligned model-dataset pairs, and the paper argues the same comparison applied to early-layer feature maps catches structural misalignments that Grad-CAM misses. A third mechanism, a $k{+}1$-th garbage class trained on unrelated X-ray images, gives the network an explicit rejection option. The reported consequence is that unsuitable models and inputs are identified reliably enough to gate clinical deployment: 87.54% accuracy and 93.52% ROC AUC for the Random Forest, 99.36% accuracy for the Layer 1 feature comparison, and 1.00 recall for the garbage class.

Load-bearing premise

The whole verification chain assumes the reference model's attention is a correct proxy for clinically meaningful regions and that the acceptable/misaligned labels derived from training-data origin transfer to every future model-dataset pair; if either assumption fails, a model can pass or fail verification for the wrong reason.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model that passes the Random Forest check can be trusted to focus on the same anatomical regions as the reference model, even if its classification accuracy alone would not reveal a mismatch.
  • High-accuracy models that attend to irrelevant anatomy are filtered out before deployment, addressing cases where accuracy and attention diverge.
  • The garbage class gives the classifier an explicit way to reject corrupted, partial, or wrong-anatomy X-rays instead of forcing a prediction into one of the known classes.
  • The Layer 1 feature-map check can distinguish a model trained on a different dataset at 99.36% accuracy, making early-layer activations a particularly strong signal for gross model-data mismatch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the garbage class strategy is only demonstrated on datasets it was trained on (Chin and CVM), so a natural next test is to expose the 6th class to a third X-ray anatomy never seen in training and measure whether the 1.00 recall persists.
  • My inference: because the reference model is the sole judge of good attention, replacing its Grad-CAM with expert-segmented anatomical regions of interest would make the verification independent of any particular trained network and could be tested on the same 586-point dataset.
  • My inference: the Layer 1 check's drop under rotation (99.36% to 80.13%) implies that part of the signal is low-level and geometry-sensitive, so test-time augmentation or rotation-invariant preprocessing may restore accuracy on rotated inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-part verification framework for deep convolutional neural networks used in medical X-ray image classification. The first part computes Grad-CAM attention maps and compares candidate models against a reference model using seven similarity metrics, which are then fed into a Random Forest classifier to label models as aligned or misaligned. The second part extends the comparison to early-layer feature maps. The third part appends a "garbage" class to the classifier to reject out-of-distribution inputs. Experiments on an SOS fusion staging dataset and a Class III malocclusion dataset report Random Forest accuracy of 87.54% and ROC AUC of 93.52%, near-perfect Layer 1 feature separation (99.36% accuracy), and perfect garbage-class rejection (1.00 recall) when Chin or CVM images are used as the garbage class. The authors conclude that the framework "effectively identif[ies] unsuitable models and inputs," promoting safer clinical deployment.

Significance. If the reported results generalized, the framework would address an important practical problem: detecting when a trained model is applied to data outside its intended domain, which is a known failure mode in medical imaging. The paper has several strengths: it combines complementary signals (attention maps, early features, and a rejection class), uses standard similarity metrics, includes a rotation-robustness check, and provides per-class results. These elements are sensible and potentially useful. However, the significance is entirely conditional on the validity of the "suitability" labels and the generalizability of the out-of-distribution rejection, both of which are problematic in the current experimental design. As presented, the empirical claims support only that the classifier can separate models by training-data provenance, not that it identifies clinically meaningful attention or rejects genuinely unseen out-of-distribution inputs.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The Random Forest labels are assigned by training-data origin rather than by any independent measure of clinical suitability. Specifically, 312 "not acceptable" points are from models not trained on similar data and 274 "acceptable" points are from models trained on similar data. This makes the reported 87.54% accuracy and 93.52% ROC AUC measures of dataset-provenance separability, not of model-verification performance. The term "suitable" is thus operationally defined as "trained on the same dataset as the reference model," which is circular for the claim that the framework identifies clinically meaningful attention. The authors need an external ground truth (e.g., expert annotation of attention regions, clinical outcome data, or at least a held-out model-dataset pair not used in label construction) to support the verification claim.
  2. [§3.4 and §4.3] The garbage class is trained on the exact out-of-distribution categories that it later rejects, namely Chin images when Chin is the garbage class and CVM images when CVM is the garbage class. The reported 1.00 precision, recall, and F1-score for the 6th class therefore reflect the supervised training signal on those specific categories, not a general ability to reject unfamiliar inputs. To support the claim that the framework "detects out-of-distribution inputs," the garbage class must be evaluated on categories not seen during its training (e.g., a held-out OOD dataset), or the paper must clearly restrict its claim to known OOD categories.
  3. [§3.2 and Figure 2] The reference model (ConvNeXt+Attn trained on the SOS dataset) is treated as a gold standard for "clinically meaningful" attention without any expert or quantitative validation. Figure 2 shows that SOS-trained models focus on "relevant anatomical regions" and Class III-trained models do not, but no comparison to expert-defined regions of interest is provided. If the reference model's attention is not in fact clinically correct, the entire alignment/no-alignment distinction inherits that error. The authors should validate the reference model's attention against expert segmentations or an equivalent clinical standard, and report agreement statistics for the reference attention maps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The Wasserstein Distance formula is written as a sum over i of d(i)|P(i)-Q(i)|, which is not the standard 1D Wasserstein-1 distance unless d(i) is properly defined as the ground distance between support points or the formula is meant as an approximation. Please clarify the definition and the support of the distributions.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The KL Divergence formula includes an epsilon term in the denominator but the value of epsilon is not specified. Please state the value used in the experiments.
  3. [Tables 5 and 6] The acronyms "Chin" and "CVM" are used without definition. Please expand these terms when first introduced.
  4. [§4.2 and Table 4] The rotation-robustness experiments mention "rotated SOS" images but do not describe the rotation angle or augmentation procedure. Please specify the experimental setup for this condition.
  5. [Table 1] The column header "CLASS III - Chin" is confusing; the connection between the Class III malocclusion dataset and the term "Chin" should be explained in the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Verification labels are defined by training-data provenance, so the Random Forest and garbage-class results report separability of the training labels rather than an independent test of model suitability.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Model Verification Outcomes (Random Forest)]
    "For evaluation, we compute the gradient attention map for each sample and compare it against the reference average gradient attention map. From this comparison, we extract seven similarity features that quantify spatial, perceptual, and statistical similarities between the attention maps. This results in a dataset of 586 data points, where each sample is characterized by these seven features."

    The Random Forest target labels are defined by whether the candidate model was trained on 'similar data' (i.e., the SOS dataset, like the reference ConvNeXt+Attn model). The seven features are similarities between the candidate Grad-CAM map and the same SOS reference map. Therefore the reported 87.54% accuracy and 93.52% ROC AUC measure how well the features separate training-data provenance. The conclusion that the framework 'identifies unsuitable models' is not an independent prediction: 'suitability' is, by construction, the label the classifier was fit to predict. The cross-validated metrics confirm class separability, not an external or clinical validity of the attention alignment.

  2. self definitional [Sections 3.4 and 4.3, Garbage Class Strategy]
    "To detect out-of-distribution inputs, we introduce a k + 1 class for models originally trained for k-class classification. This additional ”garbage” class is trained using unrelated datasets such as Chin or CVM samples. ... Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate that the 6th class achieves perfect 1.00 precision, recall, and F1-score, indicating its ability to correctly isolate mismatched data."

    The inputs later counted as rejected (Chin images when Chin is the 6th class; CVM images when CVM is the 6th class) are the very samples used to train the garbage class. For the k+1-class network, these images are not out-of-distribution; they are in-distribution for class 6. The reported 1.00 recall is thus the supervised training/test accuracy of the garbage-class label, by construction, not an independent demonstration that the model detects inputs outside its training distribution. The out-of-distribution rejection claim reduces to the definition of the garbage class.

full rationale

The central verification outcome is a Random Forest fitted to labels whose operational meaning is 'trained on the same dataset as the reference model.' The reported ROC AUC and accuracy therefore demonstrate that Grad-CAM similarity features separate the two provenance groups used as training labels; this is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern rather than an independent verification of clinical suitability. The garbage-class method is similarly self-definitional: the so-called out-of-distribution images are included in the training set as the garbage class, so their perfect recall is the direct result of supervised training, not an independent detection result. I score this 6 rather than higher because there is still an empirical feature-label relationship learned from data, and the similarity metrics themselves are standard and externally defined; the circularity is specifically in how the target concept ('suitable' vs 'unsuitable', 'out-of-distribution') is operationalized by the same training provenance or training images that are later reported as predictions. The paper's self-citations [22,23] are not load-bearing for the verification claims, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked, so no additional circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the reference model's attention as an unvalidated gold standard, a supervised random forest that is fit to labels of the same type it later predicts, and the assumption that the supervised labels and garbage-class training distribution generalize to new clinical settings. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Random Forest classifier parameters = not reported (trained on 586 labeled samples)
    The verification decision is a supervised classifier fitted to labeled aligned/misaligned pairs; hyperparameters such as number of trees and depth are not stated.
  • Early convolutional layer selection = Layer 1 and Layer 2
    The feature-map verification uses hand-picked Layer 1 and Layer 2 activations with no ablation over other layers.
  • Reference model choice = ConvNeXt+Attn trained on SOS
    The alignment ground truth is defined by this model's attention maps; no independent expert annotation is used to define clinically correct attention.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Grad-CAM heatmaps reflect clinically meaningful attention
    The framework assumes that what the network highlights in the Grad-CAM heatmap is a valid proxy for the anatomical regions a clinician would use. Invoked in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Similarity between candidate and reference attention indicates clinical suitability
    The method postulates that if a candidate model's attention maps are similar to the reference model's, the model is clinically suitable. Invoked in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Reference model attention is a valid gold standard
    The reference model is a single architecture trained on one dataset, and its attention is treated as the alignment target without evidence that it matches expert regions. Invoked in Section 3.2 and Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Aligned/misaligned labels are transferable to new model-dataset pairs
    The Random Forest is trained on labels defined by relative dataset origin (SOS-trained versus Chin-trained), and this is assumed to generalize to all future verification queries. Invoked in Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The garbage class training distribution covers real out-of-distribution inputs
    The 6th class is trained on Chin or CVM images, and the paper assumes that these represent the OOD inputs that will appear at deployment. Invoked in Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gradient Attention Map Based Verification of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks with Application to X-ray Image Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LBTHISH2

@misc{pith2026250421227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gradient Attention Map Based Verification of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks with Application to X-ray Image Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LBTHISH2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21227}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning models have great potential in medical imaging, including orthodontics and skeletal maturity assessment. However, applying a model to data different from its training set can lead to unreliable predictions that may impact patient care. To address this, we propose a comprehensive verification framework that evaluates model suitability through multiple complementary strategies. First, we introduce a Gradient Attention Map (GAM)-based approach that analyzes attention patterns using Grad-CAM and compares them via similarity metrics such as IoU, Dice Similarity, SSIM, Cosine Similarity, Pearson Correlation, KL Divergence, and Wasserstein Distance. Second, we extend verification to early convolutional feature maps, capturing structural mis-alignments missed by attention alone. Finally, we incorporate an additional garbage class into the classification model to explicitly reject out-of-distribution inputs. Experimental results demonstrate that these combined methods effectively identify unsuitable models and inputs, promoting safer and more reliable deployment of deep learning in medical imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grad-CAM visualization for a model trained and tested on the SOS dataset. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the average Gradient Attention Maps (GAMs) for each model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., and Brodie, A

    Powell, T. V., and Brodie, A. G. (1963). Closure of the spheno-occipital synchondrosis. The Anatomical Record, 147(1), 15–23

    work page 1963

  2. [2]

    S., Al-Attab, R., Al-Tayar, B., et al

    Al-Gumaei, W. S., Al-Attab, R., Al-Tayar, B., et al. (2022). Comparison of spheno-occipital synchondrosis maturation stages with three-dimensional assessment of mandibular growth. BMC Oral Health, 22(1), 654

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recog- nition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 770–778. 11

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.-Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., and Xie, S. (2022). A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11976–11986. IEEE

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., and Batra, D

    Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., and Batra, D. (2017). Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 618–626

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    de O., et al

    Lisboa, C. de O., et al. (2017). Orthodontic-surgical retreatment of facial asymmetry with occlusal cant and severe root resorption: A 3-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics , 152(2), 268–280

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Kawai, N., et al. (2021). Treatment decision of camouflage or surgical orthodontic treat- ment for skeletal Class III patients based on analysis of masticatory function. Journal of Dental Sciences , S1991790221002464

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., and Haffner, P. (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11), 2278–2324

    work page 1998

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    N., Str¨ umke, I., and Ihlen, E

    Pellano, K. N., Str¨ umke, I., and Ihlen, E. A. F. (2024). From movements to metrics: Evaluating explainable AI methods in skeleton-based human activity recognition. Sen- sors, 24(6), 1940

    2024

  3. [11]

    E., Pintelas, E., Kiriakidou, N., and Pintelas, P

    Livieris, I. E., Pintelas, E., Kiriakidou, N., and Pintelas, P. (2023). Explainable image similarity: Integrating Siamese networks and Grad-CAM. Journal of Imaging , 9(10), 224

    2023

  4. [12]

    Adebayo, J., Gilmer, J., Muelly, M., Goodfellow, I., Hardt, M., and Kim, B. (2018). Sanity checks for saliency maps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 31

    2018

  5. [13]

    Hase, P., and Bansal, M. (2020). Evaluating explainable AI: Which algorithmic expla- nations help users predict model behavior? arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.01831

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., and Batra, D

    Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., and Batra, D. (2020). Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. International Journal of Computer Vision , 128, 336–359

    2020

  7. [15]

    K., and M¨ uller, K.-R

    Samek, W., Montavon, G., Vedaldi, A., Hansen, L. K., and M¨ uller, K.-R. (2019). Explainable AI: Interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning (Vol. 11700). Springer Nature

    2019

  8. [16]

    Ras, G., Xie, N., Van Gerven, M., and Doran, D. (2022). Explainable deep learning: A field guide for the uninitiated. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 73, 329–396. 12

    2022

  9. [17]

    C., and Chen, L

    Li, X.-H., Shi, Y., Li, H., Bai, W., Cao, C. C., and Chen, L. (2021). An experimental study of quantitative evaluations on saliency methods. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 3200–3208

    2021

  10. [18]

    Chakraborty, T., Trehan, U., Mallat, K., and Dugelay, J.-L. (2022). Generalizing ad- versarial explanations with Grad-CAM. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 187–193

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chaddad, A., Peng, J., Xu, J., and Bouridane, A. (2023). Survey of explainable AI techniques in healthcare. Sensors, 23(2), 634

    2023

  12. [20]

    M., and Zemel, Y

    Panaretos, V. M., and Zemel, Y. (2019). Statistical aspects of Wasserstein distances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 6(1), 405–431

    2019

  13. [21]

    Koonce, B. (2021). ResNet 34. In Convolutional Neural Networks with Swift for Ten- sorFlow: Image Recognition and Dataset Categorization , 51–61. Springer

    2021

  14. [22]

    H., Atici, S

    Milani, O. H., Atici, S. F., Allareddy, V., Ramachandran, V., Ansari, R., Cetin, A. E., and Elnagar, M. H. (2024). A fully automated classification of third molar development stages using deep learning. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 13082

    2024

  15. [23]

    H., Allareddy, V., Milani, O

    Rhee, M., Elnagar, M. H., Allareddy, V., Milani, O. H., Cetin, A. E., and Sanchez, F. J. (2025). Integrating machine learning for treatment decisions in anterior open bite orthodontic cases: A retrospective study. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodon- tists. Elsevier. 13

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.