CVAIJul 15

Anatomically Faithful but Temporally Blind: Auditing Attribution for Left-Ventricular Ejection-Fraction Estimation from Echocardiography

arXiv:2607.137383.4
Predicted impact top 87% in CV · last 90 daysOriginality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

This paper reveals a critical failure mode in XAI for video diagnostic models: spatial faithfulness does not guarantee temporal faithfulness, cautioning against using attribution alone for model validation.

Deep video models for ejection fraction estimation are spatially faithful (2.91x and 1.98x above chance) but temporally blind, with temporal localization indistinguishable from chance (0.97-1.00), indicating models ignore clinically decisive frames.

Background and Objective: Deep video models estimate left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF) from echocardiography with near-expert accuracy, and post-hoc attribution (Chefer relevance for transformers, Grad-CAM for CNNs) is increasingly used to certify that models "look at the right place." Yet whether these explanations are faithful both spatially and temporally is unaudited. Because EF is defined by the end-systolic (ES) and end-diastolic (ED) frames, a faithful explanation must localize the left ventricle (space) and the decisive frames (time). Methods: We fine-tune two distinct EF regressors on EchoNet-Dynamic -- a self-supervised VideoMAE transformer and a Kinetics-pretrained R(2+1)D CNN -- and audit each with architecture-matched attribution along three axes: intersection-over-relevance (IoR) against LV masks, deletion AUC, and a temporal localization index on ES/ED frames, each relative to chance with per-case 95% CIs over 50 studies. A tubelet-occlusion probe separates attribution failure from model behavior. Results: Both models are anatomically faithful -- IoR 2.91x (VideoMAE) and 1.98x (R(2+1)D) above chance -- yet temporally blind: temporal localization is indistinguishable from chance (0.97--1.00) and no better than random attribution. Occlusion shows the models do not preferentially rely on ES/ED (0.90x chance), so temporal blindness reflects model behavior, not an attribution artifact. Conclusions: Spatial faithfulness does not imply temporal faithfulness. Attribution can certify anatomical grounding while masking that a model ignores the clinically decisive frames -- a caution for XAI-based validation of video diagnostic models and a call for temporally-aware training and evaluation.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes