DD-CAM: Minimal Sufficient Explanations for Vision Models Using Delta Debugging
Authors: Krishna Khadka, Yu Lei, Raghu N. Kacker, D. Richard Kuhn
Organizations: Department of Computer Science & Engineering The University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas, USA · Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
We introduce a gradient-free framework for identifying minimal, sufficient, and decision-preserving explanations in vision models by isolating the smallest subset of representational units whose joint activation preserves predictions. Unlike existing approaches that aggregate all units, often leading to cluttered saliency maps, our approach, DD-CAM, identifies a 1-minimal subset whose joint activation suffices to preserve the prediction (i.e., removing any unit from the subset alters the prediction). To efficiently isolate minimal sufficient subsets, we adapt delta debugging, a systematic reduction strategy from software debugging, and configure its search strategy based on unit interactions in the classifier head: testing individual units for models with non-interacting units and testing unit combinations for models in which unit interactions exist. We then generate minimal, prediction-preserving saliency maps that highlight only the most essential features. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that our approach can produce more faithful explanations and achieve higher localization accuracy than the state-of-the-art CAM-based approaches.
Figures & tables
Group
Approach
ADCC↑
AD↓
Coh↑
Com↓
Inc↑
ADD↑
Time↓
CNN Linear Heads
DD-CAM
0.8087
0.1393
0.9877
0.2137
0.4673
0.3873
1.5443
Grad-CAM
0.8010
0.1530
0.9790
0.2517
0.4200
0.3823
0.0240
Grad-CAM++
0.7727
0.1973
0.9857
0.2517
0.3590
0.3747
0.0290
XGrad-CAM
0.8010
0.1537
0.9790
0.2517
0.3740
0.3823
0.0140
Layer-CAM
0.7653
0.1980
0.9807
0.2450
0.3463
0.3500
0.0540
Score-CAM
0.7937
0.1653
0.9450
0.2300
0.4370
0.3560
1.6460
Table 1: RQ1 Results: Average performance across CNNs with linear classifier heads (ResNet-50, EfficientNet-B0, Inception-v3), CNNs with non-linear classifier heads (VGG-11, VGG-16, VGG-19), and Vision Transformers (ViT-B/16, ViT-L/16). For each metric, we highlight the best method in bold: higher values are better for ADCC, Coh, Inc, and ADD; lower values are better for AD, Com, and Time.
Approach
IoU ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
Regions ↓
DD-CAM
0.263
0.307
0.692
1.00
GradCAM
0.060
0.088
0.204
1.41
GradCAM++
0.135
0.171
0.519
1.11
XGrad-CAM
0.049
0.081
0.161
1.39
LayerCAM
0.137
0.183
0.567
1.10
Score-CAM
0.055
0.093
0.149
1.02
Table 2: RQ2 Results: Average localization performance on 1,000 chest X-rays (DenseNet-121). Best values are in bold (higher is better for IoU, Precision, Recall; lower for Regions).
Figure 1: Qualitative comparison of saliency maps generated by our approach (DD-CAM) and baseline approaches (Grad-CAM, Grad-CAM++, XGrad-CAM, Layer-CAM, Score-CAM, Ablation-CAM, and Recipro-CAM).
Figure 2: Qualitative localization examples on NIH ChestX-ray14. DD-CAM consistently isolates a single, compact pathological region while baselines vary between diffuse and fragmented responses.
Deep Learning models can include billions of parameters or more, making it difficult to explain their internal transformations and outputs. However, explainability is increasing in importance due to the use of AI in crucial applications. This paper focuses on the interpretability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Building on the popular gradient based method LayerCAM for extracting internal features in CNNs, we propose an improved method named HiRA-CAM, and show that it outperforms both LayerCAM and Grad-CAM on creating useful saliency maps for object classification. The main feature of HiRA-CAM is its adaptive use of activation maps from all the layers of the CNN to arrive at a more focused saliency map.
Manasi Nerurkar, Ali A. Minai
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, USA
Saliency maps are most useful when they identify the image regions that are sufficient to preserve a model's behaviour. We introduce SEAMS, a sufficiency-based saliency method that directly optimises a soft mask using a preservation objective. Given a frozen differentiable model output, such as a class probability, CLS embedding, or token representation, SEAMS searches for a compact mask that preserves the selected output. The approach relies on a simple optimisation framework based on soft masks, a learnable budget, and a three-way image composite generated entirely from the query image. As a result, it requires no auxiliary distractor dataset, architecture-specific attribution mechanism, or differentiable top-k relaxation. Experiments with frozen ViT-S/16 and ConvNeXt models show that the same optimisation pipeline can generate object-level, class-conditioned, and token-level explanations by changing only the preserved target. The resulting masks are compact, interpretable, stable across random initialisations, and competitive on insertion and deletion benchmarks. Our results also indicate that different architectures often rely on different sufficient evidence while achieving similar preservation fidelity, highlighting the architecture-dependent nature of visual explanations.
Vision Transformers (ViTs) achieve strong performance in visual recognition, yet their decision-making remains difficult to interpret. We propose BiCAM, a bidirectional class activation mapping method that captures both supportive (positive) and suppressive (negative) contributions to model predictions. Unlike prior CAM-based approaches that discard negative signals, BiCAM preserves signed attributions to produce more complete and contrastive explanations. BiCAM further introduces a Positive-to-Negative Ratio (PNR) that summarizes attribution balance and enables lightweight detection of adversarial examples without retraining. Across ImageNet, VOC, and COCO, BiCAM improves localization and faithfulness while remaining computationally efficient. It generalizes to multiple ViT variants, including DeiT and Swin. These results suggest the importance of modeling both supportive and suppressive evidence for interpreting transformer-based vision models.
Qin Su, Tie Luo
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA