Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography

Ahmed Jaheen

Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers. We tested whether they locate cancers worse there, and why. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps by whether their peak hits the lesion and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio (bits; +1 doubles it). Unadjusted gaps were large: Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions. Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap. Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap. Controls also implicate the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.