Abstract
Understanding how supervision signals shape semantic visual representations remains challenging, particularly in fine-grained, low-data settings. Standard evaluations of vision models rely on downstream accuracy, which often fails to capture structural differences in learned representations. We propose a compact explainability-driven framework for comparing encoders trained with classification-only and caption-generation supervision on CUB-200. Using a controlled two-stage protocol in which both encoders are ultimately optimized for the same classification task, we enable a direct comparison of the resulting representations. Saliency maps are generated using attention rollout and gradient-weighted rollout and evaluated with five metrics covering faithfulness (positive and negative perturbation) and localization (keypoint emphasis, background attribution, and Earth Mover's Distance). Across random seeds and explanation methods, caption supervision yields representations that are more sensitive to the removal of salient regions, better aligned with annotated object parts, and less reliant on background regions, whereas classification supervision produces representations that are slightly more robust to the removal of low-saliency regions. An ablation study on the Oxford-IIIT Pet dataset shows consistent trends across key metrics. These results demonstrate that the proposed framework makes supervision-induced representational differences observable and quantifiable beyond downstream accuracy alone. More broadly, it provides a systematic basis for assessing learned representations and comparing alternative training and transfer-learning strategies.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28051
