Attribution Upsampling should Redistribute, Not Interpolate
Organizations: Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
Abstract
Attribution methods in explainable AI rely on upsampling techniques that were designed for natural images, not saliency maps. Standard bilinear and bicubic interpolation systematically corrupts attribution signals through aliasing, ringing, and boundary bleeding, producing spurious high-importance regions that misrepresent model reasoning. We identify that the core issue is treating attribution upsampling as an interpolation problem that operates in isolation from the model's reasoning, rather than a mass redistribution problem where model-derived semantic boundaries must govern how importance flows. We present Universal Semantic-Aware Upsampling (USU), a principled method that reformulates upsampling through ratio-form mass redistribution operators, provably preserving attribution mass and relative importance ordering. Extending the axiomatic tradition of feature attribution to upsampling, we formalize four desiderata for faithful upsampling and prove that interpolation structurally violates three of them. These same three force any redistribution operator into a ratio form; the fourth selects the unique potential within this family, yielding USU. Controlled experiments on models with known attribution priors verify USU's formal guarantees; evaluation across ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CUB-200 confirms consistent faithfulness improvements and qualitatively superior, semantically coherent explanations.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Model | Bilinear | Bicubic | Lanczos | USU | USU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | ||||||
| ImageNet | ResNet50 | |||||
| ViT-B-16 | ||||||
| VGG16 | ||||||
| CIFAR-10 | ResNet50 | |||||
| ViT-B-16 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Decision Tree | USU Refinement | Formal Guarantee |
|---|---|---|
| Root node | Coarsest partition over | Partitions pixel grid; refinement is reflexive and transitive ( Definition 1 ) |
| Node impurity | Score heterogeneity | Linear in ; zero on constant regions ( Propositions 3 and 4 ) |
| Split criterion | Boundary threshold | Monotone in : lowering weakly increases boundary set ( Proposition 5 ) |
| Child nodes | Finer sub-segments | Refinement predicate: every child contained in parent ( Definition 1 ) |
| Leaf value | Merged score via adaptive | Convex combination; bounded in ; identity on equal inputs ( Propositions 8 , 9 and 10 ) |
| Stopping rule | or | Symmetric and self-terminating ( Propositions 6 and 7 ) |
| Model | Method | IoU | Conc. | PG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RRL-MLP | Nearest | 0.77 | 0.52 | 0.76 |
| Bilinear | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.80 | |
| Bicubic | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.79 | |
| USU | 0.88 | 0.79 | 1.00 | |
| IWMR-USU | 0.91 | 0.84 | 1.00 | |
| Oracle-USU | 0.97 | 0.90 | 1.00 |
| Metric | Dir. | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Infidelity | Expected squared error between attribution-weighted perturbations and model output changes. | |
| IROF | Fraction of features removed before the predicted class changes (Iterative Removal of Features). | |
| Monotonicity | Spearman correlation between attribution rank and feature deletion impact. | |
| PixelFlipping | Area under the perturbation curve when removing pixels in attribution order. | |
| ROAD | Remove-and-debias evaluation; measures explanation quality under debiased perturbation. | |
| Sparseness | Gini coefficient of the attribution map; higher values indicate more concentrated explanations. |
| Magnitude | |
|---|---|
| Small | – |
| Medium | – |
| Large |
| lower is better | |||
| Attribution Source | ImageNet | CIFAR-10 | CUB-200 |
| USU | |||
| GradCAM | |||
| HiResCAM | |||
| GradCAM++ | |||
| XGradCAM | |||
| lower is better | higher is better | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Method | Infid. | PxFlip | ROAD | IROF | Mono. | Sparse. |
| ImageNet | |||||||
| VGG16 | Nearest | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.31 | |
| Bilinear | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.43 | 0.19 | 0.33 | ||
| Bicubic | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.42 | 0.18 | 0.32 | ||
| Lanczos-3 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.31 | ||
| lower is better | higher is better | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Method | Infid. | PxFlip | ROAD | IROF | Mono. | Sparse. |
| VGG16 | Nearest | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.18 | 0.30 | |
| Bilinear | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.42 | 0.19 | 0.32 | ||
| Bicubic | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.31 | ||
| Lanczos-3 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.18 | 0.30 | ||
| USU | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 0.71 | ||
Feature Attribution
Feature attribution estimates which input features or internal components contribute to a model’s predictions.
See all 231 papers