Understanding the Impact of Model Pruning on Long-Tail Forgetting and Explanation Reliability in Medical Imaging
Authors: Nazish Khalid, Tausifa Jan Saleem, Amal Saqib, Donald C. Wunsch, Mohammad Yaqub
Abstract
Model pruning is widely used to compress deep neural networks, reducing memory and computational requirements with minimal impact on aggregate performance. However, its effect on model behavior remains poorly understood, particularly for long-tailed medical datasets where rare but clinically important conditions are underrepresented. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether pruned models preserve reliable explanations of their predictions. To address this gap, we present a systematic study of long-tail forgetting and explanation reliability under model pruning. Across two long-tailed medical imaging datasets, two CNN architectures, four pruning methods, and sparsity levels up to 95%, we evaluate predictive performance, explanation stability, and explanation faithfulness. Our results show that predictive performance exhibits a strong frequency-dependent trend, with lower-frequency classes generally experiencing earlier and larger degradation than higher-frequency classes. In contrast, explanation stability and faithfulness are influenced primarily by the pruning strategy, with gradient-informed methods preserving explanation reliability more effectively under aggressive compression. Qualitative and mechanistic analyses further indicate that explanation degradation is primarily associated with the collapse of class-discriminative gradients rather than the disappearance of feature activations. These findings suggest that model compression should be evaluated beyond aggregate performance. Incorporating class-aware and explanation-aware evaluation reveals failure modes that would otherwise remain hidden, while moderate sparsity levels provide a practical balance between compression, predictive performance, and explanation reliability.
Pruning Large Language Models (LLMs) reduces memory and inference costs by removing parts of the network, producing smaller models that retain most of their accuracy. As attention layers are the most resource-intensive parts of LLMs, pruning them is a promising compression strategy. Prior work shows that up to 33% of attention layers can be pruned with minimal accuracy loss. Nevertheless, the impact of attention pruning on model interpretability, specifically faithfulness and confidence calibration, remains unstudied. To address this gap, we study how pruning attention layers affects explanation faithfulness and confidence calibration across five LLMs and eight datasets. While the pruned models often maintain high accuracy, we find that their faithfulness and calibration often degrade. Notably, faithfulness and calibration can fluctuate significantly, even when accuracy remains stable, highlighting a misalignment between model confidence, interpretability, and accuracy. Our findings suggest that layer pruning can affect LLMs' interpretability and reliability in ways not captured by accuracy and efficiency measures alone. We recommend including explainability and calibration metrics when evaluating pruned models.
Pietro Tropeano, Maria Maistro, Tuukka Ruotsalo +1
Deep neural networks for medical image diagnosis often achieve high predictive accuracy while relying on spurious or clinically irrelevant visual cues, limiting their trustworthiness in practice. Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to visualize model decisions in the form of saliency maps; however, these explanations do not influence how models learn during training, allowing non-causal or confounding features to persist. This motivates the incorporation of explanation supervision directly into the training objective to guide model attention toward clinically meaningful regions and promote clinically grounded decision-making. This paper presents a systematic approach to integrate explanation loss into model training and analyzes how different explanation loss designs and supervision strengths influence both predictive performance and spatial faithfulness of explanations. To quantitatively assess interpretability, two complementary explanation performance metrics-annotation coverage and saliency precision-are introduced, enabling rigorous evaluation beyond qualitative visualization. Our experimental results reveal a clear trade-off between explanation quality and explanation loss coefficients. Furthermore, quantitative statistical analysis yields consistently improved explanation alignment while maintaining comparable accuracy. Experiments were conducted on annotated chest X-ray datasets; however, the proposed framework is applicable to a broad range of annotated biomedical imaging modalities. Overall, these findings demonstrate that explanation supervision is not a monolithic design choice and provide practical guidance for incorporating explanation loss into training objectives under noisy clinical annotations.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models offer inference speedups via selective activation but impose substantial memory requirements because the whole network must remain loaded. Structured expert pruning is a practical approach for reducing deployment costs in resource-constrained settings. However, prior studies primarily evaluate benchmark utility, leaving the effect of pruning on factual reliability underexplored, particularly in high-stakes domains such as biomedicine. In this paper, we investigate how domain-specific expert pruning affects both utility and reliability. We assess four MoE models, six pruning methods, and multiple pruning ratios across generation and classification tasks under in-domain (biomedical) and cross-domain settings. Results reveal that moderate pruning preserves in-domain utility without immediate reliability decline, although hallucination risks increase at extreme pruning ratios. When shifting to the general domain, both utility and reliability degrade rapidly. These findings indicate that safe compression depends heavily on the task and domain. Evaluating pruned MoE models solely on utility is inadequate for high-stakes deployment without reliability assessment.