mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Cross-Model Consistency of Feature Importance in Electrospinning: Separating Robust from Model-Dependent Features

arXiv 2605.04905 ↗First posted 6 May 2026cs.LG cs.DBcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Electrospinning is a highly sensitive fabrication process in which small variations in operating parameters can significantly influence fiber morphology and material performance. Machine learning (ML) methods are increasingly employed to model these process-structure relationships and to identify the relative importance of processing variables. However, most existing studies rely on a single ML model, implicitly assuming that the resulting feature importance is robust and reproducible. In this study, the consistency of feature importance across multiple ML model families was systematically evaluated using a curated dataset of 96 polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) electrospinning experiments. Twenty-one ML models representing linear, tree-based, kernel-based, neural network, and instance-based approaches were trained and compared. To provide a unified interpretability framework, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to calculate feature importance consistently across all models. A rank-based statistical analysis was then performed to quantify inter-model agreement and assess the robustness of parameter rankings. The results demonstrate that predictive performance and interpretive reliability are fundamentally distinct properties. Although several models achieved comparable predictive accuracy, substantial differences were observed in their feature importance rankings. Solution concentration emerged as the most robust and consistently influential parameter (variability = 0), whereas flow rate and applied voltage exhibited high ranking variability (variability > 0.9), indicating strong model dependence. These findings suggest that feature importance derived from a single ML model may be unreliable, particularly for small experimental datasets, and highlight the importance of cross-model validation for achieving trustworthy interpretation in ML-assisted electrospinning research.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.

Builds on

5 of 25 references.

References · 5

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
  3. 2026FibreCastML: An Open Web Platform for Predicting Electrospun Nanofibre Diameter Distributionscited by 2
  4. 2026SpinCastML an Open Decision-Making Application for Inverse Design of Electrospinning Manufacturing: A Machine Learning, Optimal Sampling and Inverse Monte Carlo Approachcited by 1
  5. 2026Electrospinning-Data.org: A FAIR, Structured Knowledge Resource for Nanofiber Fabricationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.