Explanation Stability of Test-Time Adaptation in Computational Pathology: A Large-Scale Benchmark
Authors: R. G. Bahumanya, Harshith V. M., Shreyank N. Gowda, Anala M. R
Abstract
Test-time adaptation (TTA) has become a practical way to adapt deployed models to unlabeled target data, a setting that is especially relevant in computational pathology where staining, scanner, and cohort shifts are routine. While most TTA methods are evaluated by their effect on accuracy, clinical use also depends on whether the model's explanations remain reliable after adaptation. In this paper, we take a closer look at this largely unmeasured effect. We study explanation stability under TTA across two histopathology benchmarks, Camelyon17 and NCT CRC-HE, using five architectures ranging from convolutional networks to vision transformers and a pathology foundation model, seventeen TTA methods, and four attribution families. Across 2,958 adaptation runs, we observe a clear and systematic pattern: TTA methods differ sharply in how much they move model explanations, with frozen-backbone methods leaving attributions almost unchanged and continual methods such as CoTTA and RoTTA causing the largest drift. This effect is not uniform. Convolutional networks are substantially more sensitive than transformer and foundation-model backbones, and explanation drift increases with adaptation strength while remaining largely insensitive to batch size. Surprisingly, explanation stability is only weakly coupled to adaptation quality. Some methods preserve explanations almost perfectly while degrading calibration or accuracy, producing silent failures that would be missed by accuracy-only or explanation-only evaluation. These findings show that explanation stability is a distinct reliability axis for TTA in computational pathology. We release the metric, protocol, and full benchmark to support future work on adaptation methods that are not only accurate, but also stable and clinically auditable. Code: https://github.com/bahumanyarg11/tta-explanation-stability-pipeline
This position paper argues that claims about explanation stability are scientifically invalid without cross method validation. Just as statistical significance requires the test statistic to be specified, stability should either be evaluated across multiple attribution paradigms or explicitly scoped to the computational objective of a single method. In controlled chest X ray experiments, DenseNet201, ResNet50V2, and InceptionV3 achieved AUC values above 99%, yet their stability rankings reversed across attribution methods. LayerCAM ranked InceptionV3 as the most stable model, with an IoU of 0.777, whereas GradCAM++ favored DenseNet201 and reduced InceptionV3 stability score by 17.3%. These findings demonstrate that explanation stability is an emergent property of the model method pair rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the model alone. We therefore argue that explanation based claims should be validated across multiple attribution methods and that regulatory submissions should explicitly specify the attribution operators used to avoid creating illusory safety assurances.
Pathology foundation models (FMs) produce powerful tile-level representations which remain sensitive to scanner and staining variability, undermining deployment across laboratories. We develop a novel fine-tuning recipe that improves the robustness of pathology FMs to acquisition factors. Applied to ten different FMs, our fine-tuning strategy consistently improves robustness for every model as well as downstream performance, with no observed trade-off. On average, it raises the PathoROB robustness index by 23% (from 0.72 to 0.87) and increases the overall cross-benchmark performance by 43% on Patho-Bench, HEST and THUNDER combined, with individual gains reaching up to 72% in robustness (Phikon-v2) and 76% in performance (Midnight-12k). We publicly release the fine-tuned versions of Phikon-v2 (Phaet) and Midnight-12k (Mascaret) at https://huggingface.co/wearewaiv/models.
Alexandre Filiot, Oskar Thaeter, Benoit Schmauch +1
Attention-based multiple instance learning (ABMIL) is the predominant approach for slide-level prediction in computational pathology, yet its attention maps provide only local explanations: they indicate where a model focuses but not which histological features drive its predictions or how the model behaves across a patient cohort. We present Semantic Attention Global Explanations (SAGE), a post-hoc framework that extracts global, language-grounded explanations from a frozen ABMIL model. Using a pathology vision-language model, SAGE scores image patches against a dictionary of 25 histological concepts, aggregates these scores according to the model's learned attention, and quantifies how each concept relates to prediction risk across a cohort. Applied to survival prediction using seven TCGA cancer cohorts and three foundation models, SAGE recovered established prognostic features, such as the adverse association of necrosis, while revealing cancer-specific biology, including a favorable angiogenic signature in renal cell carcinoma consistent with known molecular subtypes. Ablation studies demonstrated that these associations depend on the model's learned attention rather than concept prevalence alone, and that the concept dictionary captures much of the prognostic information encoded by the foundation model features. Through semantically-grounded explanations, SAGE provides a scalable, model-agnostic framework for understanding what ABMIL survival models learn, enabling pathologists to interpret model behavior at the cohort level and offering the potential for biomarker identification.
Abdallah Lamane, Abdul Rahman Diab, Ren-Chin Wu +1