# Do RUL explanations hold up? Faithfulness and stability of attributions on C-MAPSS

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04278 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04278/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10758/) (2018)
- [Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06321/) (2015)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.