{"id":"0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness","argument":"Ahmed Jaheen reports an audit of whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, where cancers can be hidden. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, the study scored three CNNs’ Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps using lesion-hit rates and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio. Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense-breast lesions versus 58% of non-dense lesions. Jaheen says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap; an average -0.56 bit gap remained for occlusion. Controls also implicated the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded those from an image-only conspicuity map, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. The findings complicate treating a saliency map as evidence that a classifier uses the cancer: the apparent gap partly reflects which lesions are in each group, while the reported controls suggest classifier reliance may also differ. Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, for each classifier, alongside conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence supplied is the paper's abstract, which reports results on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views; it does not provide the per-classifier adjusted gaps in the supplied text.","speaker":{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","publishedAt":"2026-11-04","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The study tests whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, using three CNNs and three kinds of maps on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views.","excerpt":"On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Grad-CAM peaks hit dense-breast lesions less often than non-dense lesions in the unadjusted results.","excerpt":"Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The author says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","excerpt":"Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"An average gap remained for occlusion after the reported analysis.","excerpt":"Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The paper's controls implicate classifier reliance as well as the map scores: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on lesions in dense breasts.","excerpt":"unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","excerpt":"We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What density gaps remain for each classifier after case-mix adjustment, alongside the proposed conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness","summary":"Ahmed Jaheen reports an audit of whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, where cancers can be hidden. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, the study scored three CNNs’ Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps using lesion-hit rates and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio. Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense-breast lesions versus 58% of non-dense lesions. Jaheen says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap; an average -0.56 bit gap remained for occlusion. Controls also implicated the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded those from an image-only conspicuity map, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. The findings complicate treating a saliency map as evidence that a classifier uses the cancer: the apparent gap partly reflects which lesions are in each group, while the reported controls suggest classifier reliance may also differ. Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, for each classifier, alongside conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","question":"What density gaps remain for each classifier after case-mix adjustment, alongside the proposed conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls?","claims":[{"text":"The study tests whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, using three CNNs and three kinds of maps on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views.","excerpt":"On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Grad-CAM peaks hit dense-breast lesions less often than non-dense lesions in the unadjusted results.","excerpt":"Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The author says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","excerpt":"Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"An average gap remained for occlusion after the reported analysis.","excerpt":"Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The paper's controls implicate classifier reliance as well as the map scores: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on lesions in dense breasts.","excerpt":"unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","excerpt":"We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence supplied is the paper's abstract, which reports results on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views; it does not provide the per-classifier adjusted gaps in the supplied text."],"mediaId":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","correctionReason":null,"id":"0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc","publicationId":"e55e91c9-3596-4ecc-8393-381f8dce3c1a","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","sourceTitle":"Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-04","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-05T05:06:34.442Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T00:09:41.055Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:03.894Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","confidence":0.8099999999999999,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"15a28cae924d02347c4f5cce66c62ae67f46ca8a9048bdd9323d0f1ac73da655","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:06.271Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observationId":"a84a95fc71d69fc5531835417e3b94bf1669981070be4f17b0eb38de192ec5a3","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:03.495Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"1b692fe4-59b8-4e61-8737-60523c2464e1"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"281f794f-184a-4669-8d72-f5969ecca02f"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T00:09:41.055Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Jaheen, Ahmed","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","contentSha256":"17afdfd42aab5e755be460fe818d2b4456b1707e6d50a8b1f20dee24eb9746da","textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","snapshotId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329","contentSha256":"17afdfd42aab5e755be460fe818d2b4456b1707e6d50a8b1f20dee24eb9746da","textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-do-saliency-maps-fail-dense-breasts-an-audit-of-0a213130","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-do-saliency-maps-fail-dense-breasts-an-audit-of-0a213130","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-do-saliency-maps-fail-dense-breasts-an-audit-of-0a213130.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-do-saliency-maps-fail-dense-breasts-an-audit-of-0a213130.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc","revision":"e55e91c9-3596-4ecc-8393-381f8dce3c1a","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-do-saliency-maps-fail-dense-breasts-an-audit-of-0a213130"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","revision":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness","argument":"Ahmed Jaheen reports an audit of whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, where cancers can be hidden. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, the study scored three CNNs’ Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps using lesion-hit rates and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio. Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense-breast lesions versus 58% of non-dense lesions. Jaheen says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap; an average -0.56 bit gap remained for occlusion. Controls also implicated the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded those from an image-only conspicuity map, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. The findings complicate treating a saliency map as evidence that a classifier uses the cancer: the apparent gap partly reflects which lesions are in each group, while the reported controls suggest classifier reliance may also differ. Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, for each classifier, alongside conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence supplied is the paper's abstract, which reports results on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views; it does not provide the per-classifier adjusted gaps in the supplied text.","speaker":{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","publishedAt":"2026-11-04","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The study tests whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, using three CNNs and three kinds of maps on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views.","excerpt":"On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Grad-CAM peaks hit dense-breast lesions less often than non-dense lesions in the unadjusted results.","excerpt":"Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The author says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","excerpt":"Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"An average gap remained for occlusion after the reported analysis.","excerpt":"Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The paper's controls implicate classifier reliance as well as the map scores: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on lesions in dense breasts.","excerpt":"unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","excerpt":"We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What density gaps remain for each classifier after case-mix adjustment, alongside the proposed conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness","summary":"Ahmed Jaheen reports an audit of whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, where cancers can be hidden. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, the study scored three CNNs’ Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps using lesion-hit rates and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio. Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense-breast lesions versus 58% of non-dense lesions. Jaheen says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap; an average -0.56 bit gap remained for occlusion. Controls also implicated the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded those from an image-only conspicuity map, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. The findings complicate treating a saliency map as evidence that a classifier uses the cancer: the apparent gap partly reflects which lesions are in each group, while the reported controls suggest classifier reliance may also differ. Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, for each classifier, alongside conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","question":"What density gaps remain for each classifier after case-mix adjustment, alongside the proposed conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls?","claims":[{"text":"The study tests whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, using three CNNs and three kinds of maps on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views.","excerpt":"On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, we scored three CNNs' Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Grad-CAM peaks hit dense-breast lesions less often than non-dense lesions in the unadjusted results.","excerpt":"Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense vs. 58% of non-dense lesions.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The author says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","excerpt":"Case mix, chiefly more calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"An average gap remained for occlusion after the reported analysis.","excerpt":"Occlusion kept a significant average of -0.56 bit gap.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The paper's controls implicate classifier reliance as well as the map scores: unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on lesions in dense breasts.","excerpt":"unadjusted gaps exceeded an image-only conspicuity map's, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","excerpt":"We recommend reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, per classifier, with conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence supplied is the paper's abstract, which reports results on 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views; it does not provide the per-classifier adjusted gaps in the supplied text."],"mediaId":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","correctionReason":null,"id":"0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc","publicationId":"e55e91c9-3596-4ecc-8393-381f8dce3c1a","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","sourceTitle":"Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? A Chance-Normalized, Confounder-Aware Audit of Explanation Fairness in Mammography","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-04","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-05T05:06:34.442Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T00:09:41.055Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:03.894Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"cb77eb90250e76a8adfb4d3eec15e91c71ff01687282ea888aa3282fbf5d06d2","confidence":0.8099999999999999,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"15a28cae924d02347c4f5cce66c62ae67f46ca8a9048bdd9323d0f1ac73da655","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:06.271Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observationId":"a84a95fc71d69fc5531835417e3b94bf1669981070be4f17b0eb38de192ec5a3","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T15:17:03.495Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"1b692fe4-59b8-4e61-8737-60523c2464e1"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"281f794f-184a-4669-8d72-f5969ecca02f"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T00:09:41.055Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Jaheen, Ahmed","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Jaheen, Ahmed","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","contentSha256":"17afdfd42aab5e755be460fe818d2b4456b1707e6d50a8b1f20dee24eb9746da","textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05909","snapshotId":"38a3c3f1d89dadea533d12ade36acbcbc65abb92c43c1558a9a814127d4ef329","contentSha256":"17afdfd42aab5e755be460fe818d2b4456b1707e6d50a8b1f20dee24eb9746da","textHash":"aaf520acb8f1f974d2088a05c0064e8af3db0d427a8c6cb994d6636eb97d4df2","observedAt":"2026-11-10T00:40:11.796Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/0a213130e2c72d3ce4e1f997c38d1d0a6ba08d7a47fc996a1ee0a9ec4ff3e5dc/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"e55e91c9-3596-4ecc-8393-381f8dce3c1a","verdict":"passed","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading attributes the audit, findings and recommendation to Ahmed Jaheen, the sole listed author of the arXiv paper. The arXiv cs.AI label matches the publisher metadata, and the paper is cross-listed in cs.AI. Reported results are framed as the paper's claims ('Jaheen says', 'Jaheen recommends'), not as established fact.","excerpt":"Authors:Ahmed Jaheen"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading faithfully covers the question, data, methods, headline gap, case-mix explanation, residual occlusion gap, controls and recommendation. It explains dense breasts and saliency maps' role as evidence. The '-0.56 bit' figure is not explained (the source notes +1 bit doubles the ratio). The source's word 'significant' was dropped. Both are minor. Fix: restore 'significant' and add a tooltip for bits. Technical terms are kept exactly for tooltips. The question is a genuine open issue.","excerpt":"a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio (bits; +1 doubles it)"},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The original publication date of 2026-11-04 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of Nov 5 is later and is correctly not used.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"All claims match the abstract: 1,345 views, three CNNs and three map types, 44% vs 58%, case mix explaining about half or more of each gap, the -0.56 bit occlusion gap, controls implicating the classifiers, and the recommendation. The interpretive sentence about complicating saliency maps as evidence is hedged ('suggest', 'may'). It rests on the abstract's framing that saliency maps are offered as evidence classifiers use the cancer. The limitation notes that only the abstract was available.","excerpt":"Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the original source and the easiest access point.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-10T00:09:41.055Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}