Explainable AI and susceptibility to adversarial attacks: a case study in classification of breast ultrasound images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasound is a non-invasive imaging modality that can be conveniently used to classify suspicious breast nodules and potentially detect the onset of breast cancer. Recently, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) techniques have shown promising results in classifying ultrasound images of the breast into benign or malignant. However, CNN inference acts as a black-box model, and as such, its decision-making is not interpretable. Therefore, increasing effort has been dedicated to explaining this process, most notably through GRAD-CAM and other techniques that provide visual explanations into inner workings of CNNs. In addition to interpretation, these methods provide clinically important information, such as identifying the location for biopsy or treatment. In this work, we analyze how adversarial assaults that are practically undetectable may be devised to alter these importance maps dramatically. Furthermore, we will show that this change in the importance maps can come with or without altering the classification result, rendering them even harder to detect. As such, care must be taken when using these importance maps to shed light on the inner workings of deep learning. Finally, we utilize Multi-Task Learning (MTL) and propose a new network based on ResNet-50 to improve the classification accuracies. Our sensitivity and specificity is comparable to the state of the art results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".