arXiv:2611.10331v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated thin-section classifiers increasingly combine plane-polarised and cross-polarised light (PPL and XPL), two complementary views central to petrographic identification. Classification accuracy alone does not reveal whether model errors reflect mineralogical relationships, how predictions depend on each optical view, or whether attribution maps identify regions that influence model decisions. Here, we examine these complementary aspects of the released LITHOS dual-stream vision transformer using outputs from an earlier evaluation of 105,802 expert-annotated grains across 25 categories. Classification errors frequently followed the label taxonomy: 72.6\% of misclassified plagioclase, microcline and sanidine grains were assigned the generic Feldspar label, while 87.1\% of quartz-family grains received a label within that family, compared with 66.6\% assigned their exact label. Replacing the XPL input with its per-channel spatial means produced a greater reduction in true-class probability than equivalent PPL replacement in 20 of 25 categories, but not in the three quartz categories. Five explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) attribution procedures generated visually distinct maps for identical inputs. In a superpixel-deletion analysis involving 30 grains from 29 thin sections, method-minus-random contrasts ranged from $-0.043$ to $0.057$, with all 41 simultaneous 95\% confidence intervals including zero. Together, these findings show that error structure, modality sensitivity and attribution behaviour capture distinct aspects of model performance that cannot be established from classification accuracy or visual inspection of attribution maps alone.
Continue to arXiv AI →You are being forwarded in 6s — stay on this page