Position: Genomic Model Research Must Move Beyond Anecdotal Evaluation of Interpretability Methods

Genomic language models achieve strong performance across regulatory-genomics tasks, yet what these models internally represent remains opaque, and the field lacks a principled procedure for verifying that an apparent concept'' inside a model is real rather than an artifact of sequence composition. We introduce a framework that combines sparse dictionary learning with causal intervention to extract, validate, and causally test interpretable features in genomic foundation models. Training top-$k$ sparse autoencoders on the hidden activations of two architecturally distinct models, Nucleotide Transformer ($6$-mer tokenization) and DNABERT-2 (byte-pair encoding), we recover thousands of monosemantic features that map to transcription-factor (TF) sequence motifs. We show that the naive validation of such features against position weight matrices is severely confounded by GC composition and repetitive elements, producing hundreds of spurious TF features'', and we develop a composition-matched, binding-resolved protocol that removes these confounds. Critically, we move beyond correlation: by ablating individual dictionary directions during the model's forward pass and measuring the induced shift in the model's own predictive distribution, we establish that specific features are \emph{causally} used to represent cell-type-specific TF binding, not merely motif presence. Across three transcription factors (CTCF, GATA1, REST) and both architectures, causally validated binding features emerge reproducibly ($7$--$14$ of $15$ tested features per condition), while two classes of negative control, scrambled binding labels and randomly selected features, yield no detectable signal. The framework is purely computational, uses only public data, and provides a reusable standard for interpretability claims in genomic deep learning.

Progress in genomic foundation models is difficult to assess due to fragmented benchmarks, incompatible evaluation protocols, and task-specific reporting. As a result, claims of superiority or generality across models are often not directly comparable. We introduce GENEB, a large-scale diagnostic benchmark that evaluates frozen representations from 40 genomic foundation models across 100 tasks spanning 13 functional categories under a unified probing-based protocol, including few-shot regimes. GENEB enables controlled comparison across model scale, architecture, tokenization, and pretraining data while explicitly exposing task-level trade-offs. Our analysis shows that aggregate leaderboards are unstable: model rankings vary sharply across task categories, scale provides only modest and inconsistent gains, and architectural and pretraining alignment frequently outweigh parameter count. These results highlight limitations of current evaluation practices and position GENEB as a reference framework for principled comparison and category-aware model selection in genomic machine learning.

Machine learning models are primarily judged by predictive performance, especially in applied genomics, where explanations are read as biological findings. In practice, reported gene panels are stabilised by averaging, ranking, or taking consensus over the many models a pipeline produces across cross-validation folds, tuning grids, and repeated runs. This raises an overlooked question: when two models achieve high accuracy, do they rely on the same internal logic, or reach the same outcome via different mechanisms? We introduce EvoXplain, a diagnostic framework that measures whether a pipeline's explanation is uniquely determined across repeated training and model selection. Rather than analysing a single trained model, EvoXplain treats explanations as samples drawn from the training and model selection pipeline itself, without aggregating predictions or constructing ensembles, and examines whether they form a single coherent explanatory basin or separate into multiple structured basins. We evaluate EvoXplain on a TCGA pan-cancer cohort and a within-cancer breast-cancer subtype task, using elastic-net Logistic Regression and gradient-boosted trees. Although all models reach about 98% accuracy, explanation structure differs across pipelines. Holding the data split fixed and varying only the regularisation strength, equally accurate Logistic Regression models separate into a few discrete, reproducible basins that recur across 100 data splits and carry distinct biological content, while the gradient-boosted pipeline converges to one basin. The same multiplicity appears within a single cancer subtype, from the ordinary tuning step alone. EvoXplain makes explanatory structure visible, revealing when an averaged consensus corresponds to no single trained model, and reframes interpretability as a property of the training pipeline rather than of any single model.