Explanation Stability

In geophysics, hydrocarbon prospect risking involves assessing the risks associated with hydrocarbon exploration by integrating data from various sources. Machine learning-based classifiers trained on tabular data have been recently used to make faster decisions on these prospects. The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of such models has led to the emergence of explainable AI (XAI). LIME and SHAP are two such examples of these XAI methods which try to generate explanations of a particular decision by ranking the input features in terms of importance. However, explanations of the same scenario generated by these two different explanation strategies have shown to disagree or be different, particularly for complex data. This is because the definitions of "importance" and "relevance" differ for different explanation strategies. Thus, grounding these ranked features using theoretically backed causal ideas of necessity and sufficiency can prove to be a more reliable and robust way to improve the trustworthiness of the concerned explanation strategies.We propose a unified framework to generate counterfactuals as well as quantify necessity and sufficiency and use these to perform a robustness evaluation of the explanations provided by LIME and SHAP on high dimensional structured prospect risking data. This robustness test gives us deeper insights into the models capabilities to handle erronous data and which XAI module works best in pair with which model for our dataset for hydorcarbon indication.

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.

Perturbation-based explainability methods face criticism due to their reliance on out-of-distribution mutants. This raises doubts about the quality of the explanations. In this paper, we introduce a novel forward pass paradigm, Activation-Deactivation (AD), which obviates the need for perturbation of the input. AD replaces perturbation of input features with switching off parts of the model corresponding to to the intended perturbations. We implement ConvAD, an AD approximation algorithm for CNNs. ConvAD is a drop-in mechanism that can be easily added to any trained CNN and, without any additional training, generates more robust and more transferable explanations. We provide evaluation results across multiple architectures, datasets, methods and perturbation strategies, demonstrating the superior quality of ConvAD compared to the SOTA.

One of the most pressing challenges in artificial intelligence is to make models more transparent to their users. Recently, explainable artificial intelligence has come up with numerous methods to tackle this challenge. A promising avenue is to use concept-based explanations, that is, high-level concepts instead of plain feature importance scores. Among this class of methods, Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs, Kim et al., 2018) stand out as one of the main protagonists. One interesting aspect of CAVs is that their computation requires sampling random examples from the train set. Therefore, the actual vectors obtained may vary depending on the randomness of this sampling. In this paper, we propose a fine-grained theoretical analysis of CAV construction in order to quantify their variability. Our results, confirmed by experiments on several real-life datasets of four different modalities, point to an universal result: the variance of CAVs declines roughly as $1/N$, where $N$ is the number of random examples. Based on this, we give practical recommendations for a resource-efficient application of the method.