Explainability from Training with Applications to TCR-Epitope Prediction

T cell receptor (TCR)-epitope binding prediction is essential for understanding adaptive immunity and developing immunotherapies. Existing sequence- and structure-based models often generalize poorly to unseen epitopes and provide limited interpretability. Furthermore, the impact of generated structures on model learning remains unclear. We present TCR-SRIM, a structure-regularized interpretable-by-design model that combines protein language model embeddings with interpretable contact prototypes to capture residue-level TCR-epitope interactions. TCR-SRIM achieves state-of-the-art predictive performance and improved interpretation quality on the TCR-XAI benchmark. Using its inherent interpretability, we further evaluate the effect of generated structures on model learning. While structures predicted by AlphaFold3, TCRModel2, and tFold-TCR yield competitive performance, they lead to less accurate interaction patterns and reduced binding-site diversity than experimentally-resolved structures. Our results highlight limitations of current structure prediction models for TCR-epitope learning and demonstrate the value of interpretable-by-design models for studying generated biological structures.

Accurate computational prediction of T cell receptor (TCR) antigen specificity would transform the study of T cell biology and enable scalable immune engineering, yet existing models lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity for broad applications. A major limitation is the absence of rigorously defined, unseen benchmark datasets that allow unbiased evaluation of model performance and generalizability. Here, we describe two complementary classes of datasets that meet this criterion and argue that they provide both a robust framework for model assessment and a foundation for next-generation TCR-antigen prediction algorithm development.

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.