On Robustness of the Explanatory Power of Machine Learning Models: Insights From a New Explainable AI Approach Using Sensitivity Analysis
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".