Guided AbsoluteGrad : Magnitude of GradientsMatters to Explanation’s Localization and Saliency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new gradient-based XAI method called Guided AbsoluteGrad for saliency map explanations. We utilize both positive and negative gradient magnitudes and employ gradient variance to distinguish the important areas for noise deduction. We also introduce a novel evaluation metric named ReCover And Predict (RCAP), which considers the Localization and Visual Noise Level objectives of the explanations. We propose two propositions for these two objectives and prove the necessity of evaluating them. We evaluate Guided AbsoluteGrad with seven gradient-based XAI methods using the RCAP metric and other SOTA metrics in three case studies:(1) ImageNet dataset with ResNet50 model;(2) International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) dataset with EfficientNet model;(3) the Places365 dataset with DenseNet161 model.Our method surpasses other gradient-based approaches, showcasing the quality of enhanced saliency map explanations through gradient magnitude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".