On Robustness of the Explanatory Power of Machine Learning Models: Insights From a New Explainable AI Approach Using Sensitivity Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) is increasingly considered the solution to environmental problems where limited or no physico‐chemical process understanding exists. But in supporting high‐stakes decisions, where the ability to explain possible solutions is key to their acceptability and legitimacy, ML can fall short. Here, we develop a method, rooted in formal sensitivity analysis , to uncover the primary drivers behind ML predictions. Unlike many methods for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), this method (a) accounts for complex multi‐variate distributional properties of data, common in environmental systems, (b) offers a global assessment of the input‐output response surface formed by ML, rather than focusing solely on local regions around existing data points, and (c) is scalable and data‐size independent, ensuring computational efficiency with large data sets. We apply this method to a suite of ML models predicting various water quality variables in a pilot‐scale experimental pit lake. A critical finding is that subtle alterations in the design of some ML models (such as variations in random seed, functional class, hyperparameters, or data splitting) can lead to different interpretations of how outputs depend on inputs. Further, models from different ML families (decision trees, connectionists, or kernels) may focus on different aspects of the information provided by data, despite displaying similar predictive power. Overall, our results underscore the need to assess the explanatory robustness of ML models and advocate for using model ensembles to gain deeper insights into system drivers and improve prediction reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it