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 (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02116
