Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study provides a critical audit of DeBERTa-v3 for zero-shot medical abstract classification, focusing on resolving the "disagreement problem" where different attribution methods yield conflicting explanations. By comparing model-agnostic techniques like SHAP and LIME against transformer-specific approaches, the research establishes that explanatory stability directly correlates with predictive certainty, particularly in high-ambiguity clinical domains. The findings offer a robust framework for validating AI reliability in healthcare settings by quantifying agreement metrics and identifying systemic failure modes such as lexical hypersensitivity.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

A Comparative Explainability Framework for DeBERTa-v3 in Zero-Shot Medical Abstract Classification

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.02116v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A comparative explainability framework is presented to audit DeBERTa-v3 under zero-shot classification of medical abstracts. The work addresses the disagreement problem in Explainable Artificial Intelligence, where different attribution methods produce divergent explanations for the same input and prediction. A natural language inference engine is implemented over the Medical Abstracts corpus with five enriched hypotheses per diagnostic category and a balanced sample of one thousand texts per class. Five explanation methods are compared: SHAP and LIME as model-agnostic approaches, occlusion and Input x Gradient as deep-learning-specific approaches, and Attention x Gradient as a transformer-specific approach. Explanations are standardized through top-token attribution, and pairwise agreement is quantified using the Jaccard index. High predictive accuracy is achieved across well-defined clinical domains, whereas performance degrades under high semantic ambiguity. Explanatory stability directly mirrors predictive certainty, exhibiting strong convergence in univalent categories and a marked drop under diagnostic uncertainty. Furthermore, qualitative error auditing uncovers three systemic failure mechanisms: lexical hypersensitivity, semantic overlap, and loss of attribution coherence. The results support the combined use of several explanation methods and quantitative agreement metrics when auditing transformer-based models in medical text classification, and suggest prioritizing specific clinical ontologies over broad diagnostic labels.

Abstract:A comparative explainability framework is presented to audit DeBERTa-v3 under zero-shot classification of medical abstracts. The work addresses the disagreement problem in Explainable Artificial Intelligence, where different attribution methods produce divergent explanations for the same input and prediction. A natural language inference engine is implemented over the Medical Abstracts corpus with five enriched hypotheses per diagnostic category and a balanced sample of one thousand texts per class. Five explanation methods are compared: SHAP and LIME as model-agnostic approaches, occlusion and Input x Gradient as deep-learning-specific approaches, and Attention x Gradient as a transformer-specific approach. Explanations are standardized through top-token attribution, and pairwise agreement is quantified using the Jaccard index. High predictive accuracy is achieved across well-defined clinical domains, whereas performance degrades under high semantic ambiguity. Explanatory stability directly mirrors predictive certainty, exhibiting strong convergence in univalent categories and a marked drop under diagnostic uncertainty. Furthermore, qualitative error auditing uncovers three systemic failure mechanisms: lexical hypersensitivity, semantic overlap, and loss of attribution coherence. The results support the combined use of several explanation methods and quantitative agreement metrics when auditing transformer-based models in medical text classification, and suggest prioritizing specific clinical ontologies over broad diagnostic labels.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.02116 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.02116v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.02116 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 292 words

Related coverage