Is it actually reasonable to use single-class accuracy?

[AwesomeLemon]

Hi, I'd like to ask a question regarding your paper.
I'm interested in Fig 2.C and Fig S4.a,b. If I understand correctly, there you remove 256 neurons least relevant to a specific class, and measure change in balanced single-class accuracy. However, whether balanced or unbalanced, that accuracy includes true negative rate which is dependant on performance on other classes, which would also be influenced by the removal of the neuron. Therefore this measure does not depend on a single-class performance, but rather on all the classes.

Consider this: since the neurons being removed are very likely relevant to those other classes, it is no wonder that their true negative rate suffers, which influences the single-class accuracy for the currently targeted class.

My question then is: am I missing something in my thought process? Maybe you have considered this and decided it's irrelevant?

Thanks in advance.

[AwesomeLemon]

To explain my concern more clearly in an example: Accuracy for class 1 includes as a term True negative rate for classess 2..365.

Suppose we remove a neuron that doesn't influence class 1 at all (completely irrelevant), but that is relevant for class 2.

Then true negative rate for class 2 changes, which influences the single-class accuracy for class 1.

But this influence is solely due to class 2, not class 1