Behind the [MASK]: Disentangling Representation and Faithfulness in DAPF-Based Dementia Detection
Organizations: University of Illinois Chicago Chicago, IL, USA
Abstract
Spoken-language analysis via prompt-based domain-adaptive models is a promising direction for low-resource, non-invasive dementia screening, but such models remain internally opaque. We study the interpretability of the Domain-Adapted models via Prompt-based Fine-tuning (DAPF) framework, which casts dementia detection as diagnosis-related masked-token prediction. We interpret DAPF and strong baselines using a variety of probing and analysis techniques, finding that DAPF achieved the best overall performance (accuracy=0.83 and macro-F1=0.83) with diagnosis most recoverable from its [MASK] representation. However, this representational advantage did not extend to token-level explanation faithfulness. DAPF attributions primarily reflected language task vocabulary, discourse markers, and transcription artifacts, with perturbation tests showing weak or negative effects. This suggests that its masked-token interface determines diagnosis information without producing faithful token-level explanations.
Figures & tables
| Dataset Split | Total | AD | HC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source Train (CCC) | 105 | 57 | 48 |
| Target Train (ADReSS) | 108 | 54 | 54 |
| Target Test (ADReSS) | 48 | 24 | 24 |
| Component | DAPF-BERT | BERT-CLS | BERT-CLS+Prompt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input format | Prompt-wrapped transcript | Transcript only | Prompt-wrapped transcript |
| Prediction interface | MLM/verbalizer at [MASK] | Classifier over [CLS] | Classifier over [CLS] |
| Template | Manual template ID 7 | - | Manual template ID 7 |
| Verbalizer | Manual | - | - |
| Model | Acc. | Macro-F1 | AUROC | ECE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAPF | 0.8292 | 0.8287 | 0.8757 | 0.1683 |
| BERT-CLS | 0.8083 | 0.8063 | 0.8906 | 0.1695 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | 0.8083 | 0.8065 | 0.8819 | 0.1680 |
| Correct Model Combination | Count |
|---|---|
| All three correct | 170 |
| All three incorrect | 19 |
| DAPF only | 20 |
| BERT-CLS only | 3 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt only | 2 |
| BERT-CLS + BERT-CLS+Prompt | 17 |
| Model | Representation | Probe Macro-F1 |
|---|---|---|
| DAPF | [CLS] | 0.7550 |
| DAPF | [MASK] | 0.7989 |
| BERT-CLS | [CLS] | 0.7704 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | [CLS] | 0.7683 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | auxiliary [MASK] | 0.7662 |
| Representation | Diagnosis Probe | Random Probe |
|---|---|---|
| DAPF [CLS] | 0.7550 0.0113 | 0.474 0.007 |
| DAPF [MASK] | 0.7989 0.0189 | 0.470 0.004 |
| Token | Total | T/S | Attr. | SD | |Attr.| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reach | 55 | 8 | 0.2540 | 0.1900 | 0.3374 |
| out | 240 | 32 | 0.1832 | 0.1569 | 0.2337 |
| something | 25 | 5 | 0.1827 | 0.0946 | 0.2568 |
| anything | 40 | 6 | 0.1262 | 0.0808 | 0.1584 |
| cookies | 150 | 21 | 0.1130 | 0.1906 | 0.2982 |
| quiet | 25 | 5 | 0.0921 | 0.1086 | 0.1211 |
| Token | Total | T/S | Attr. | SD | |Attr.| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| okay | 60 | 12 | -0.5181 | 0.3719 | 0.5775 |
| lid | 40 | 7 | -0.1401 | 0.0474 | 0.1456 |
| guess | 45 | 8 | -0.1141 | 0.0574 | 0.1407 |
| cabinets | 35 | 5 | -0.1017 | 0.0865 | 0.1366 |
| curtains | 55 | 11 | -0.0977 | 0.0196 | 0.1726 |
| laughing | 35 | 7 | -0.0813 | 0.0523 | 0.1502 |
| Model | Test | 5% | 20% | 50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAPF | Deletion | 0.0080 | 0.0055 | -0.0318 |
| DAPF | Insertion | -0.0187 | -0.0352 | -0.0916 |
| BERT-CLS | Deletion | 0.0259 | 0.0142 | 0.0067 |
| BERT-CLS | Insertion | 0.0369 | 0.0813 | 0.1223 |
| BERT-CLS +Prompt | Deletion | 0.0302 | 0.0426 | 0.0259 |
| BERT-CLS +Prompt | Insertion | 0.0279 | 0.0787 | 0.1225 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Analysis | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Representation probing | Logistic regression probe |
| Probe evaluation | Stratified 5-fold CV |
| Probe metric | Macro-F1 |
| Primary attribution method | Integrated Gradients |
| Attribution sensitivity check | Partition SHAP (DAPF seed 0) |
| Attribution target |
| Model | Acc. | Macro-F1 | AUROC | ECE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAPF | 0.8292 0.0174 | 0.8287 0.0173 | 0.8757 0.0183 | 0.1683 0.0284 |
| BERT-CLS | 0.8083 0.0243 | 0.8063 0.0247 | 0.8906 0.0102 | 0.1695 0.0349 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | 0.8083 0.0083 | 0.8065 0.0082 | 0.8819 0.0156 | 0.1680 0.0476 |
| Model | Representation | Probe Macro-F1 |
|---|---|---|
| DAPF | [CLS] | 0.7550 0.0113 |
| DAPF | [MASK] | 0.7989 0.0189 |
| BERT-CLS | [CLS] | 0.7704 0.0260 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | [CLS] | 0.7683 0.0152 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | auxiliary [MASK] | 0.7662 0.0374 |
| Layer | DAPF [CLS] | DAPF [MASK] | BERT-CLS [CLS] | BERT-CLS+Prompt [CLS] | BERT-CLS+Prompt aux. [MASK] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.7101 0.0102 | 0.5654 0.0107 | 0.7138 0.0148 | 0.7802 0.0283 | 0.5437 0.0093 |
| 2 | 0.6976 0.0216 | 0.6009 0.0183 | 0.7860 0.0130 | 0.6911 0.0091 | 0.5396 0.0143 |
| 3 | 0.7644 0.0116 | 0.6306 0.0266 | 0.7419 0.0142 | 0.7379 0.0405 | 0.6439 0.0380 |
| 4 | 0.6746 0.0132 | 0.7439 0.0106 | 0.7979 0.0150 | 0.7277 0.0274 | 0.6773 0.0233 |
| 5 | 0.7488 0.0204 | 0.7916 0.0315 | 0.8040 0.0214 | 0.7498 0.0304 | 0.6922 0.0481 |
| 6 | 0.7490 0.0375 | 0.7361 0.0175 | 0.7900 0.0193 | 0.7924 0.0289 | 0.7466 0.0511 |
| Statistic | Mean Signed Attribution | Mean Abs. Attribution |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | -0.0015 | 0.0724 |
| Standard Dev. | 0.0608 | 0.0637 |
| Minimum | -0.5181 | 0.0177 |
| 25th Percentile | -0.0174 | 0.0427 |
| Median | 0.0000 | 0.0540 |
| 75th Percentile | 0.0147 | 0.0753 |
| Component | Shared setting |
|---|---|
| Backbone | BERT-base-uncased |
| Training data | CCC + ADReSS train |
| Test data | ADReSS test |
| Test size | 48 transcripts |
| Epochs | 10 |
| Batch size | 4 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| IG top-20 tokens with matching SHAP direction | 11 / 20 |
| Spearman correlation | 0.362 |
| Positive Mean SHAP Attribution | Negative Mean SHAP Attribution | ||||||||
| Token | Freq. | Trans. | Mean | Mean Abs. | Token | Freq. | Trans. | Mean | Mean Abs. |
| dry | 12 | 9 | 0.0448 | 0.0464 | flow | 23 | 18 | -0.0307 | 0.0349 |
| ing | 21 | 18 | 0.0428 | 0.0477 | cookies | 30 | 21 | -0.0225 | 0.0267 |
| fall | 22 | 19 | 0.0323 | 0.0335 | cookie | 76 | 36 | -0.0222 | 0.0252 |
| reach | 11 | 8 | 0.0278 | 0.0278 | open | 15 | 12 | -0.0167 | 0.0172 |
| get | 23 | 13 | 0.0243 | 0.0284 | guess | 10 | 9 | -0.0164 | 0.0218 |
| Model | Test | 5% | 20% | 50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAPF | Deletion Drop | 0.0080 0.0155 | 0.0055 0.0132 | -0.0318 0.0144 |
| DAPF | Insertion Recover | -0.0187 0.0192 | -0.0352 0.0395 | -0.0916 0.0612 |
| BERT-CLS | Deletion Drop | 0.0259 0.0287 | 0.0142 0.0331 | 0.0067 0.0280 |
| BERT-CLS | Insertion Recover | 0.0369 0.0226 | 0.0813 0.0392 | 0.1223 0.0558 |
| BERT-CLS +Prompt | Deletion Drop | 0.0302 0.0277 | 0.0426 0.0409 | 0.0259 0.0444 |
| BERT-CLS +Prompt | Insertion Recover | 0.0279 0.0185 | 0.0787 0.0291 | 0.1225 0.0417 |
| Model | Test | 5% | 20% | 50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAPF | Deletion Drop | -0.0511 0.0471 | -0.0939 0.0499 | -0.1799 0.0483 |
| DAPF | Insertion Recover | -0.0709 0.0607 | -0.1902 0.1175 | -0.3453 0.1019 |
| BERT-CLS | Deletion Drop | -0.0166 0.0267 | -0.1318 0.0524 | -0.3318 0.1184 |
| BERT-CLS | Insertion Recover | 0.0407 0.0247 | 0.0082 0.0353 | -0.1940 0.1054 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | Deletion Drop | -0.0997 0.0775 | -0.2207 0.0907 | -0.3883 0.1016 |
| BERT-CLS+Prompt | Insertion Recover | 0.0008 0.0102 | -0.0189 0.0395 | -0.2402 0.0823 |
Faithfulness of Language Model Explanations
Faithfulness of language model explanations measures whether stated reasons reflect the evidence and processes driving model outputs.
See all 105 papers