Auditing Construct Overlap in Explainable Machine Learning: Evidence from Burnout-Depression Prediction Across Student Cohorts

Career anxiety and depression among university students present a growing challenge to mental health and academic achievement. This study proposes an Explainable AI (XAI) framework using multimodal data and Federated Learning (FL) to identify early indicators of career-related mental health problems in a privacy-preserving and culturally responsive manner. The framework combines structured behavioral data and facial emotion features from interview videos via an intermediate fusion neural network with attention mechanisms. Label smoothing was applied to improve model generalizability. FL was used across institutions to enable collaborative training without raw data sharing. Evaluation was conducted using the Student Mental Health Survey dataset from university students across Pakistan. Our model attained an F1-score of 89.12%, recall of 86.54%, accuracy of 92.08%, and precision of 91.88%. Using Integrated Gradients and SHAP, the model identified key behavioral markers of depression including avoidance of direct gaze, lower facial expressiveness, and social withdrawal, consistent with psychological theory. This research presents an interpretable, scalable, and context-sensitive AI system for mental health pre-diagnosis with potential integration into student support services globally.

Explanations of machine learning models are usually judged by criteria that are hard to compare. We propose a simpler test: if an explanation really describes how a model uses its features, it should be possible to rebuild the model's predictions from it. We turn each explanation into a predictor by reading each feature's effect and adding them up, and measure how well that predictor reproduces the model on unseen data. Nothing is fitted, so the score reflects the explanation itself. The test applies to any explanation that can be written as a function of the features; we demonstrate it on partial dependence plots (PDP), accumulated local effects (ALE), SHAP and LIME. We prove that summing partial dependence curves gives the best possible additive summary of a model when its features are independent, and that this fails when they are dependent. Across 13 real datasets and 9 synthetic designs and four model families, which method scores best depends entirely on feature dependence: where features are independent SHAP is slightly worse than PDP, exactly as the theory predicts; on dependent real data SHAP leads. Some widely used quality metrics even prefer a damaged explanation to an intact one.

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.