arXiv:2609.03663v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Background. Remote photoplethysmography estimates the cardiovascular pulse from facial video, and its explanations have rested on inspecting heatmaps rather than on quantitative evidence about where a model reads it. We quantified the explanations and asked whether such explanations transfer between datasets and track model performance. Method. We trained eight condition-specific RhythmFormer models on NCKU-rPPG, recorded under three illumination levels, speaking, rotation, and cycling, estimated one heart rate per 5.12-second clip, and set them beside a UBFC-rPPG reproduction. Raw attention, rollout, attention flow, and Beyond Intuition were assessed by skin coverage and the Salience-guided Faithfulness Coefficient (SaCo). Results. Beyond Intuition ranked highest on both datasets, at median coverage 0.789 and SaCo 0.837 on Static level 3 against 0.826 and 0.917 on UBFC-rPPG; lower ranks differed. Within one participant of one condition, neither measure was related to a clip's heart-rate error, waveform correlation, or signal-to-noise ratio on either dataset: 186 of the 252 coefficients fell below $|\rho|=0.10$ and 28 reached $p<0.05$ against the 13 expected by chance. Across the eight scenarios only Beyond Intuition's coverage followed the three performance measures, at $\rho=-0.43$, $+0.57$, and $+0.43$, while the attention-only methods' SaCo ran opposite to each. It failed at 40 lux alone, its median coverage falling to 0.180 and its median SaCo to $-0.178$, whereas motion degraded the estimates far more without such a drop. Conclusions. Skin coverage and SaCo carry information complementary to the performance measures rather than a proxy for them: attributing to the skin does not guarantee an accurate estimate. What an attribution reveals about a condition is where the model looks rather than how faithfully its map is ordered.
Abstract: Background. Remote photoplethysmography estimates the cardiovascular pulse from facial video, and its explanations have rested on inspecting heatmaps rather than on quantitative evidence about where a model reads it. We quantified the explanations and asked whether such explanations transfer between datasets and track model performance. Method. We trained eight condition-specific RhythmFormer models on NCKU-rPPG, recorded under three illumination levels, speaking, rotation, and cycling, estimated one heart rate per 5.12-second clip, and set them beside a UBFC-rPPG reproduction. Raw attention, rollout, attention flow, and Beyond Intuition were assessed by skin coverage and the Salience-guided Faithfulness Coefficient (SaCo). Results. Beyond Intuition ranked highest on both datasets, at median coverage 0.789 and SaCo 0.837 on Static level 3 against 0.826 and 0.917 on UBFC-rPPG; lower ranks differed. Within one participant of one condition, neither measure was related to a clip's heart-rate error, waveform correlation, or signal-to-noise ratio on either dataset: 186 of the 252 coefficients fell below $|\rho|=0.10$ and 28 reached $p<0.05$ against the 13 expected by chance. Across the eight scenarios only Beyond Intuition's coverage followed the three performance measures, at $\rho=-0.43$, $+0.57$, and $+0.43$, while the attention-only methods' SaCo ran opposite to each. It failed at 40 lux alone, its median coverage falling to 0.180 and its median SaCo to $-0.178$, whereas motion degraded the estimates far more without such a drop. Conclusions. Skin coverage and SaCo carry information complementary to the performance measures rather than a proxy for them: attributing to the skin does not guarantee an accurate estimate. What an attribution reveals about a condition is where the model looks rather than how faithfully its map is ordered.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: