Marc-Andre Schulz | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Attributing Cohen's d: Training Data Attribution for Disease-Related Effects in Normative Age Biomarkers

Normative age models are trained to predict chronological age in a nominally healthy cohort. Applied to patients, they deviate, and the gap between predicted and chronological age is read as disease risk. Here, we attribute the disease-related effect size of the age gap directly to individual training samples, rather than using a prediction-level loss as the attribution target. For Cohen's $d$, the resulting closed-form influence functional, validated against leave-one-out retraining, ranks training samples by their effect on held-out case-control separation. Across four diseases and two biomarker modalities in UK Biobank, removing the 10% most influential training samples raises held-out disease-related effect size in every seed. It more than doubles the metabolomic-age effect for type-2 diabetes and raises the brain-age effect for multiple sclerosis by roughly a third. Random removal leaves effect size flat even at 50% removal, confirming the gain comes from which samples are removed, not how many. Flagged subjects carry subclinical cardiometabolic burden that diagnosis-based exclusion misses, on markers the model never sees. For type-2 diabetes, where the method gains most, the marker recovered is HbA1c, the standard measure of blood sugar control. We release pyinfluence, our influence-function package, for reproducibility and reuse.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

ICON Decomposition: Auditing Deep Neural Networks with Multivariate Variance-based Concept-level Explanations

Deep neural networks often exploit spurious associations, a failure known as shortcut learning. Auditing for shortcuts requires testing many candidate concepts, such as acquisition settings or demographics. Current concept-based explainability methods test one concept at a time, asking whether it is decodable from a layer. These methods flag concepts that are merely correlated with the outcome or with each other, and their scores are not comparable across layers or concept types. We introduce ICON decomposition, which quantifies how much of a layer's variance each concept explains given all other concepts and the outcome, and how much none of them explains, yielding layer-comparable, calibrated scores that suppress false positives. On simulated data, ICON recovers concept importance more accurately than seven existing methods. On skin-cancer models with inserted artifacts, it detects induced shortcuts where baselines report false positives. On two brain-imaging models, ICON's sparse explanations are validated by retraining and out-of-distribution tests.

cs.LG↗