aiqbench analysis
This study rigorously evaluates the reliability of explainability methods like Integrated Gradients and occlusion for Remaining Useful Life (RUL) predictions in industrial maintenance contexts. The analysis reveals that while these attribution maps are robust to minor sensor noise, they lack consistency across different model training seeds, challenging their utility as stable engineering explanations. Consequently, the authors recommend using occlusion or Integrated Gradients over raw attention weights when generating reports for human engineers.
Do RUL explanations hold up? Faithfulness and stability of attributions on C-MAPSS
arXiv:2610.04278v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep remaining-useful-life (RUL) models on NASA C-MAPSS are now routine, and so are heatmaps that colour sensors and timesteps. A heatmap that looks mechanical is not the same as an explanation an engineer can act on. We train three standard architectures - a 1D CNN, an LSTM, and a small Transformer encoder - on the official FD001 and FD003 splits with the piecewise RUL cap of 125 cycles and the official PHM08 asymmetric score. We then attach three attribution maps (Integrated Gradients, occlusion, last-layer attention) and evaluate them with the checks the XAI-for-PdM literature still under-reports: deletion/insertion faithfulness, Spearman stability under sensor-scale noise, agreement across training seeds, and cosine consistency inside RUL bins. Prediction error is a prerequisite, not the claim. The headline is which explanation method moves the RUL output when its top cells are removed, and which map survives a 5% input perturbation. Integrated Gradients and occlusion are similarly faithful on the LSTM; Transformer attention is cheap and temporally smooth but weakly faithful. All three maps are almost unchanged under 5% input noise, yet IG/occlusion agree only moderately across two LSTM seeds - stability to sensor jitter is not the same as stability to retraining. A secondary tabular check on the AI4I 2020 failure dataset shows the same deletion pattern for tree importances. We recommend occlusion or IG for any C-MAPSS-style report that will be read by a maintenance engineer, and we treat raw attention weights as a visualisation only.
Title:Do RUL explanations hold up? Faithfulness and stability of attributions on C-MAPSS
Abstract:Deep remaining-useful-life (RUL) models on NASA C-MAPSS are now routine, and so are heatmaps that colour sensors and timesteps. A heatmap that looks mechanical is not the same as an explanation an engineer can act on. We train three standard architectures - a 1D CNN, an LSTM, and a small Transformer encoder - on the official FD001 and FD003 splits with the piecewise RUL cap of 125 cycles and the official PHM08 asymmetric score. We then attach three attribution maps (Integrated Gradients, occlusion, last-layer attention) and evaluate them with the checks the XAI-for-PdM literature still under-reports: deletion/insertion faithfulness, Spearman stability under sensor-scale noise, agreement across training seeds, and cosine consistency inside RUL bins. Prediction error is a prerequisite, not the claim. The headline is which explanation method moves the RUL output when its top cells are removed, and which map survives a 5% input perturbation. Integrated Gradients and occlusion are similarly faithful on the LSTM; Transformer attention is cheap and temporally smooth but weakly faithful. All three maps are almost unchanged under 5% input noise, yet IG/occlusion agree only moderately across two LSTM seeds - stability to sensor jitter is not the same as stability to retraining. A secondary tabular check on the AI4I 2020 failure dataset shows the same deletion pattern for tree importances. We recommend occlusion or IG for any C-MAPSS-style report that will be read by a maintenance engineer, and we treat raw attention weights as a visualisation only.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.04278 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.04278v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04278 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 · 348 words
Related coverage
Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026
In open RLVR, “improvement” depends on the instrument — a small GRPO testbed separating what training optimizes, measures, and teaches
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
NVExplain: Explaining Time Series Forecasting with Latent Trajectory Analysis and Structure-Preserving Surrogates
arXiv · Aug 27, 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 11, 2026